Everybody, today we're debating intelligent design and we're starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate as this is going to be a fun one, folks. It's going to be great. I want to let you know if it's your first time here and you love debates, well consider hitting that subscribe button as you've got a lot more debates coming up. So for example, you'll see at the bottom right of your screen, we're very excited for Joel Patrick, friend of Caitlin Bennett, if you have heard of either of them. Joel Patrick will be taking on Hunter Avalon and that will be on the Bible, homosexuality and the transgender topic. So that's going to be a wild one, folks. We are very excited for it. Hopefully we'll see you there and also want to let you know we're a nonpartisan platform. So we never as modern day debate push any particular view. We try to moderate our best at least as fairly and as neutral as we possibly can. So with that, we do want to let you know whether you be Christian, atheist, Democrat, Republican, you name it. No matter what walk of life you're coming from, we hope you feel welcome here. And with that, we're going to jump into this debate, want to let you know the format of front. First, it's going to be roughly 10 minute flexible opening statements from each speaker followed by open discussion. Then we'll have Q&A. We have a question fired into the old live chat. If you tag me with an at modern day debate, that makes it easier for me to get every single question. So I can't guarantee we'll get to read every question, but I can at least put every question in the list. And if you happen to, you can also have the option to do super chat. So super chat will push your question at the top of the list during the Q&A and it also gives you the possibility of giving, you could say a statement toward one of the speakers to which they would get a chance to respond to, of course. And then we ask with all of the questions or super chats, whatever it is, you'd be your regular friendly selves. So with that, thanks so much, folks. Also, do want to say cat earth. Thanks for joining our Patreon. Really appreciate the support and that you are totally, we appreciate you said you you support the message of the kind of neutral platform. So that's really encouraging. And with that, G man will be going first. So before I do set G man loose, let him out of his cage. He is ready to go. Excited. And then following that, we'll, we'll let Eric out of her cage. It's going to be a lot of fun, folks. I do want to say thanks so much to both G man and Erica for being here tonight. It's a pleasure to have you both. Glad to be here. Be here. Yeah. Yeah. The floor is all yours. G man. All right. A quick confession to the audience. Okay. Are we going to know this? And I'm going to Marvin V debate though this that would be Mr. That unfortunately the dog ate my notes. So today I'm going to agree to do something that I don't necessarily like to do. And I'm going to go fold G man today. Well, you're viewing entertainment because I don't have any notes with this debate. However, I've debated this enough times to have an idea where all of this is going to go. All right. And guess what guys? I came up with a presentation. Don't laugh at me. My very first one doing this in the debate. So let's get to it. All right. So by the way, quick shout out to all of you Christians and evolutionists that are out there. Cool. So let's do a quick screen share here. And I'll show you my abomination of a presentation. All right. Let's get started for the, for the listening audience and for Erica. I would like for you guys to do something for me. I want people to learn how to think for a minute. Okay. Not difficult. We sit back and we consider. All right. So let's just think formal. Okay. Okay. 10 seconds back or whatever. Thank you. All right. Thank you for cool. So it's time to thank ladies and gentlemen, we have to sit back and we have to consider. Okay. Now I know a lot of the people that are watching this are evolutionists and your atheists, but guys evolution and atheism is madness. I'm sorry. But it's madness. Erica always says this one thing in the opening of her statements. How are you doing my fellow apes? I know how you guys, how are you doing your apes and my primate friends? We're all apes, right? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks gentlemen. I am not an ape. I know you're a reason being called an ape. We are not living on a planet of the apes. I am a human being. And we need to think about this. I am not a ape in neither are you. I am a human being. We have a common design. Okay. After we get the circular dooms going here. All right. I'm not living on the planet of the eight. I don't look nothing like this. Neither does Erica. Erica looks more like a supermodel or whatever, not an eight over here. So, you know, this is not us. This is not my relatives. This is not my buddy. This is not my cousin. Let me tell you something. This is what we do with eight. We put eights in zooms. That's what we do with eights. We put them in zooms, okay? I'm not an eight. You're not an eight. We put eights in zooms. But it was a time, ladies and gentlemen, in our history here in the United States, that they did have, they did have a zoo. It was called the transatlantic slave trade. And they had a whole bunch of apes, according to evolutionists, in chains working for free without paying anybody. You understand what I'm saying? The transatlantic slave trade was the worst time for apes, I guess, right? No, we put apes in zooms. We learn with the abolitionists and everything that this is probably not the thing that we need to do, right? So, I think my nose is in a lot better foot. Anyway, guys, I'm gonna talk about intelligence design and I wanna talk about the idea that we have a common designer and we are not cousins or distant cousins with like, you know, big foot for, you know, the run around monkey that's out there, okay? We all have a common designer. Again, we don't live on playing with the apes. All right? So what is intelligence design? I'll try to explain it to you this way. I want you to imagine Erica looking for a fossil one day. She's out there with her big digging tools, digging in the rocks and she finds herself a watch. I know a lot of you are like, oh, God, dude, man, the watch maker, chill, relax. Just relax. You gotta feel better than that, okay?  Well, actually, if we think a little bit, you know what I mean? We consider what we have in our hands with this watch, right? Circle of Doom here, circle of Doom going. We have this watch here. We open up this watch and we examine it and we do some science on it. We start looking at all of these components and motors and little gears inside this little thing and we start noticing that there's some copper in there and some aluminum in there and some black in there, you know, in this Rolex. You know, we're like, what kind of metals would evolve over a long period of time for us to get a watch? Well, ladies and gentlemen, that would be pretty difficult to do, right? But if we actually think a little bit and use a little bit of common sense, I'm really out of mind behind it. I think we'll come up with the right conclusion regarding this watch, that it didn't evolve over a long period of time that, you know, that watch was designed by a watchmaker. Gee, man, we killed that argument a million times.  Fine, the fact of the matter is none of you are gonna refute that that watch has a watchmaker. All of you already agree with me with that.  How did those rocks get there? Did the ocean perhaps keep hitting the ocean ground? Or perhaps in a human being, somebody with an intelligence actually started piling up rocks themselves. It doesn't take a lot of common sense, ladies and gentlemen, to come to this conclusion, but there's other examples here too that I wanna show you guys. Again, I wish I had my nose. Erica's later on is probably gonna be telling you guys that over a long period of time, all of these animals share the common ancestor, right? And these animals learn how to survive based on their environment. One of the things that I'm gonna be very interesting in hearing Erica talk about and perhaps even, because I know she has a fascination with spiders and frogs, I think there are, Erica. If I'm not mistaken, you had a frog and a spider video.  We don't talk about the morality of that. We don't talk about like the evolution of that.  Maybe they were designed to do that for a particular reason. Perhaps you can actually explain to me what happened a million years ago with these black widows fighters, show me some real proof of it, and then we can talk about it. Anyway, let's continue here. So that's one of my problems with evolution. And something else that I've talked about on various different occasions on GTD, on my science channel, if you wanna call it that, is an elephant. Many elephants are born. How do they learn how to walk? Why is it that they're born? They can instinctively know how to walk. I wanna know this. I wanna understand this. I want somebody to explain to me over a long period of time how these elephants learn how to just walk without nobody teaching them these things. I think there's something that needs to be spoken about. I believe that these elephants were designed to be able to walk for survival reasons. All right, let's continue. And other reasons as well. Humans and elephants are not related and we're very different. Another thing I learned about horses is that one hour after a horse is born, that horse is able to walk. Very interesting. Let's continue. And by the way, for those of you who are watching this, again, I told you I was gonna go full G-man and this is gonna get better as we go on, okay? Again, horses can walk one hour after it's born. Now, if that's not technically right, that's fine. Now, when our parents have us, we ain't walking right away. They usually take, what, six months to a year? Let's just start walking, you know, first we start crawling.  But babies can't walk right away. Why is it that? How can a horse do this and a baby can't? It takes a full year after our parents teach us and strengthen our legs for us to be able to walk. If you go to livescience.com, that was something really interesting over there. That pound for pound, a chip is stronger than a human. Now, ladies and gentlemen, how many times have we been in these hangouts and in these conversations with these evolutionists where they have told us that things get better over time, right? Now, Erica loves chimps. She loves monkeys, she loves apes, she loves everything about them. She says that in her opening statements all the time. What I find very interesting about this is, if everything gets better over time, one of the things I like to know is why am I weaker than a chimp or a gorilla or a monkey or a orangutan or anything like that? Why am I weaker than them? If evolution is true, then I should be stronger to adapt into my environment. No, evolution for some reason decided that I need to be weaker moving on the water. So anyway, let me continue. Again, God loves my notes, don't act on me, all right? So again, if you go to liveaction.com, this is what it's gonna tell you, okay? And again, it goes into pound for pound, our closest cousins in the animal kingdom are about 1.35 times more powerful than humans according to the first study compare to the underlying biology and mechanics of chimpanzees' muscles to human muscle along with reviewing previous research done on the topic. Again, I'm not understanding how evolution chose us to be weaker and not stronger. Then the evolution is love when we bring this kind of thing up. We're designed, what about all the human errors?  I don't know if Erica's gonna talk about this or not, but some of you guys out there who are real sick wanna know why we're on MenGynethic. One of the things that I wanna tell you about this particular topic is when God created our skin, I guess it happened in somewhere, if you know what I mean. So, again, that's one of the questions that you guys like to ask regarding, oh, good dessert, why do we have so many mistakes? It's not a mistake, all right? Why are there different races? So, the evolution is that's actually asking why there are different races. My friends, there is only one human race, all right? I take the position that in the book of Genesis, I'm gonna say this now, so I ain't gotta say it later, that in the book of Genesis, God told the man to go out and to be fruitful and to multiply. And what they ended up doing was they created a tower that was gonna reach God, and God kept promising languages and he went to different parts of the earth. Whether you believe that story or not, we both believe that at one time, everybody was in one particular area and then we spread out, okay? Some of our pigmentation changed, some of our skin color changed and our anatomy changed a little bit. But it doesn't mean that we are a different race, we're the same people, we just look a little different, all right?  What you see is humans, that's what you see, all right? Now, if we go to Darwin, and we look at this origin of species, they are the ones who still focus on this stuff. The origin of species by means of natural selection. I'm sorry, what happened? Okay, the preservation of favorite races, okay, I might have to fast-forward this a little bit. Erica, can I get about three more minutes to Erica, because I don't really have my notes, is that all right? It's cool with me, it's cool with James. All right, cool, yeah, James, let me get my three minutes, man, please. I'll just try to keep going on. So if these Darwinian, ladies and gentlemen, that is cool with our race, watch this. I'm the only person that's skeptical about evolution, ladies and gentlemen, not at all. We got to spit because of all the claims for the ability of random mutations. Natural selection will count for the complexity of life. Therefore, examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. I'm skeptical, skeptical, skeptical, skeptical. Skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, the complexity of life, the complexity of life. Careful, examination of the evidence. I mean, Erica, it's cool to me to be encouraged. No, I do want to say I included this, all the trolls that are watching this here today, because a lot of you are going to sit there and tell me that it's just G-Man, G-Man's the only person that disagrees with the theory of evolution, and no, it's not only G-Man, there's a whole lot of scientists that back me up on this tool where we're skeptical about the theory of evolution and the complexity that is involved. So I'm going to yield my time here. This is just my opening statement without my notes. I know I've put your, the entire thing, it'll get better as we go into the Q and A. Bottom line is ladies and gentlemen, we have evidence. Evidence, we have proof, because we see it every day, that we share a common ancestor with other human beings. We do not share a common ancestor with a monkey, an ape, a gorilla, a watermelon, great dates, raisins, or anything like that, because we have no evidence for that, we've never seen it, there's no observation on it, whatsoever, and there's no experimentation that can use COVID. I yield my time, Erica, I would love to hear your presentation. Oh, right. Okay. Go ahead, Erica. Wow, man, that was full G-man, wasn't it? I'm not quite sure, you know, honestly, I just, I might as well just yield my whole statement in the rest of the debate, G-man already won. That's what everyone's saying. Can you guys hear me? Yeah. Oh, okay, I guess it just wasn't that funny. All right, James, am I good to share my screen? What do you think? Okay, cool. Hold on, let me see if I can actually get this going. Oh, wait, hold on. I don't think I can share it once I've got the, I don't have it up already. Oh, maybe. I liked the video, G-man, I was a big fan of that. Okay, cool, cool. All right, let's see here, share screen. All right, can you guys see that? Yeah, there we go, all right. Did you go? Yes. Very cool. All right, I'm gonna set this to, let me make sure this still works. Yeah, good to go. Great, okay, I'm gonna start now. All right, my presentation is titled, Intelligent Design and Why is Inferior to Evolution in Every Conceivable Way? This is, of course, by me, Erika, your gentle and modern primates, speaking to the rest of you gentle modern apes out there. And this is actually a picture of myself and a couple of my colleagues in 2015, recreating the March of Progress, which is that famous, albeit slightly inaccurate, classic evolution photo in Old Divide Gorge in Tanzania, which is actually where they find a great many hominin specimens. But let's go ahead and start. So what are we discussing today? Well, what we are discussing is intelligent design in its young Earth creationist context and in its viability in explaining the biodiversity of life on Earth when compared to evolutionary theory. What we're not discussing is the big bang, the formation of stellar bodies, a biogenesis, analogues to various non-biological entities such as cars and computer code, outdated literature from 1980 and before, and quotes from specific scientists without full context. So what is intelligent design? Let's define it. Well, generally speaking, it's the theory that life or the universe cannot have arrived by chance and it was designed or created by some intelligent entity. But in young Earth creationist context, which is what G-Men would be based off of my cursory analysis of him, it's that living organisms, rather, are created more or less in their present form by an intelligent designer. And this is intelligent, like ID proponents, are almost exclusively linked to those who hold religious beliefs, which I find very interesting because if we're following the evidence where it leads, you'd think that there would be some crossover between sort of the conventional scientists that maybe don't have religious beliefs. So the general arguments from intelligent design are the fine-tuning argument. This would fall into that category of the first group of people, which is the idea that Earth's conditions, both cosmic and local, seem kind of designed for life as they might be rare. Now, this isn't really relevant to today. And I would suggest that G-Men confront an astronomer or physicist with those ones. But the other one is irreducible complexity. And this is the idea that there are things in nature which are so complex that they could not have possibly evolved by natural processes alone. This is very relevant. So here's some of the classic irreducible complexity arguments where I thought G-Men was going today. The evolution of the eye, the heart, the flagella, multicellularity, terrestrial living, invertebrates, wings, and birds, and consciousness, which of course is in quotation marks because consciousness is kind of hard to define. So I thought I'd go ahead and zip through a couple of these really quickly because generally speaking, when creationists or ID proponents are talking about how, wow, it's just confounding. We have no idea how the heart or the eye or multicellularity could have evolved. This is not the case. And more often than not, it seems to be the case that very little or no research has been done on the literature base with regard to kind of observations and experimentation that has been done regarding the evolution of such structures or mechanisms. So the eye and the heart, wow, look at this. We've got two very recent papers, one from 2013 and one from 2017, which sort of denote how we track this evolution both in fossil specimens, in genetics, and of course in living organisms because many of these steps have living analogs. What about the flagellum? Well, there's a great paper from, let's see, 2007, which is a little older than I would like, but I really liked this sort of summary here. These results show that the core components of the bacterial flagellum originated through the successive duplication and modification of a few or perhaps even a single precursor gene. This quote alone blows out of the water this whole concept of, oh, well, you need new information because as conventional science has been saying the entire time, new information is very frequently not novel. It's a repetition and change of old information and adaption on an existing structure. What about terrestrial living and tetrapods? Well, G-men loves saying that there's no species, no transitional fossils. I would love to talk about that with him if we get the chance because here are some good ones right here, Eustenopteron, Pandaricthes, Tectallic. We have Acanthostega and Ithiostega. And what we can see in these fossils, which are separated by geologic time, is a mosaic of traits that's slowly moving in its ratio from being more fish-like or rather more sarcopteridium-like to being more tetrapod-like. This includes the emergence of digits, bones in the forearms, pectoral muscles for lifting themselves up and all sorts of this good stuff including eyes moving to the tops of the head and indeed lung structures, sometimes combined with gill structures and our more mosaic specimens. What about wing evolution? Well, we got that too. In fact, we see the emergence of feathers just being sort of a plumage statement to being full-on flight-capable in Rahanabis and Archaeopteryx. Change their geologic time. I don't think if you ran into any of these earlier guys towards the left of the screen in person that you would think they were anything but a dinosaur, but the fact that the matter is you would be right because birds are dinosaurs. They're pheropods. Consciousness, now this is one I really like because as Jim and probably knows, I study primates or I'm in the process of studying primates. The theory of mind and language are both tied very tightly to consciousness and here is just a series of various papers that I've had to read this semester regarding primates and they're very, very likely theory of mind, the emergence of language and it's very protoform and animals as basal as geladas as well as sort of a theory of mind that we see in cetaceans and corvids and in cephalopods. So, very interesting stuff. We can see at the bottom one that's a great paper, gestural repertoire of one to two year old children mimics what we see in chimps, which is very interesting. In short, intelligent design is not necessary. Every appeal to intelligent design can and for the most part has been shown to be a likely product of evolution by natural selection. No organism or mechanism found in nature can be evaluated as impossible to have occurred thanks to evolution because impossible necessitates preclusion. This means you essentially have to say, well, there's no way it could have happened and I don't think that has ever been done. Additionally, thanks in part to the wedge document, we now know that modern intelligent design is unapologetically an attempt to offer an alternative to evolution, which requires religion, not evolution, it's an alternative that does require religion. So, other flaws for intelligent design. Well, from a YAC perspective, it cannot denote its own created kinds. It also has to grapple with the overwhelming evidence of an ancient earth and universe from geology and physics. Intelligent design cannot clarify what makes a design a design. There's no way to tell what is or what isn't a part of design or an emergence from a created kind. And most importantly, intelligent design lacks any semblance of a model or testable predictions and relies almost entirely on attempting to poke holes in evolution. As such, it has an abysmal literature base. Like it's very difficult to find anybody serious talking about intelligent design except for maybe Steven Meyer and Michael Beehe. What about evolutionary theory? Well, common descent on evolutionary theory supported by geology, paleontology, genetics, morphology and statistics is by far and away the most parsimonious answer to the question of biodiversity. So let's zip through some of this. Genetics, humans and chimpanzees when we compare coding base pairs are about 99% similar. And you guys are gonna see a lot of these slides that if you've followed my debates that all that you've seen before because I have to bring them up again. We have three papers at the bottom left that support this. In fact, humans are more closely related to the chimps and bonobos than any other animal and they are more closely related to us than any other animal. This is important. That means that chimpanzee has more in common with you genetically and with me genetically than they do with the gorilla. And of course, we determined that with the same methods or the souped up version, albeit that we used to determine paternity in humans. That's for relatedness. So where do we draw the line? That's the classic question. Here are a couple of great papers on endogenous retroviruses which they essentially necessitate being passed down from common ancestors and 99.9 of the ERVs we find in humans are shared with those in the chimp genome. What about paleontology? Wow, I love this picture. I bring it up every time because I think it's so cool. Here we have a ton of different hominid and hominin skulls all lined up in a row. And what we see is small morphologic change over geologic time. It may be hard to imagine B going to C or rather not B to C. It might be hard to imagine B going to M but not quite difficult to imagine B to C. In fact, some anthropologists who are trained have trouble identifying who's who. That's how gradual this change is. Of course, it does require quite a bit of time and I hope that we will discuss that as well. Here's some excellent sort of in-depth look at the Australopithecines, both aphorensis, anamensis and aphorensis or rather, afroconis. So we have almost identical knees in the bottom right. It's important to remember we don't just have one specimen of Australopithecines, we have many. They have a parabolic palate, a gradually more medial ventral for him and that knows going underneath the skull to support bipedalism. An inline big toe. Look at these pelvises. If you were to pick one that was the odd man out, you'd pick the chimp. What about the femoral head? It's crazy how gradual this is. You couldn't ask for a more perfect mosaic with regard to post crania. What about morphology? Well, everything that you use to categorize that rhesus macacus catarine, you used to put humans in the same category. We have all of the same traits that make them catarines and that's why we are also classified as catarines. We could go in depth more on to this, but we'd be here all day if we spent all that time doing it. What about statistics? This is sort of a recent one that I very much like and I appreciate Jackson Wheat for these sources. I'm gonna read sort of these little quotes from these two papers, both of which are very recent. The first one says, we overwhelmingly reject both species and family separate ancestry. Those are the created kinds sort of in a creation orchard that answers and Genesis proposes due to infinitesimal P values. Many of these data sets reject species separate ancestry strongly and the probability of obtaining a test statistic more extreme than the one observed under the species separate ancestry model being incredibly small, often approaching or greatly exceeding the probability of picking a correct atom at random among the estimated 10 to the 80th atoms in the known universe. That means that statistically speaking when we just look at the raw mathematic data there is no support for separate ancestry. Then there's the second one this is we demonstrate quantitatively that as predicted by evolutionary theory sequences of homologous proteins from different species converge as we go further and further back in time. A non-evolutionary model shows no or a non-evolution control model shows no convergence and only a small number of parameters are required to account for the observation. It is time that researchers insisted that doubters put up testable alternatives to evolution which they have not. Well, what about you weren't there? You know, it's not like we saw all this happen but that and that's true but there are plenty of fields of science that are not as scrutinized as evolution that do the same thing. In astronomy we get data from neutron stars and black holes and supernovae and the informants of their properties. We're not directly observing them most of the time or in some cases none of the time we are. What about medicine? Well, a pathogen is not always directly cultured but doctors will still treat it based off of the data or the symptoms or geology. We haven't watched the plates move for millions of years but we know how they move today and we can use that to predict the formations they were once in. Most creationists accept Pangea under a Milwaukee lens saying that all the plates moved apart into their present condition during Noah's flood and a shameless plug for RJ Downard and Jackson Wheat that an excellent book that covers in more depth what I've done in this small presentation. So to conclude intelligent design in a young earth creationist model, it lacks a model. It makes no predictions. It lacks any statistical power and it fails utterly to explain biodiversity. Evolutionary theory on the other hand has a model that is supported by numerous fields has made thousands upon thousands of testable predictions has enormous statistical power and it explains biodiversity in its entirety. And that's all I have to say. I'm excited to chat with the G-Man. Thank you very much, Erica. We will now go into the open discussion section. So folks with that, if you have questions as mentioned, fire them into the old live chat because in about an hour we will go into the Q and A and we are very excited for that as well. So G-Man and Erica, pleasure to have you. The floor is all yours.  All right, cool. So you said that intelligent design doesn't make any predictions. Yes. That's the last thing I heard you say. It has interesting.  No, that's not intelligent design. Okay, why is that not intelligent design? Because intelligent design, at least in its creationist version, based off of the size, the source that I have found, maybe you have one that disagrees. But intelligent design, by definition, requires an external intelligent designer to interact and tinker with organisms that it is not part of. You see what I mean? So for it to be intelligent design, you would have to have maybe like a doctor who would intervene in sort of the embryology of that to create an organism that was modified. That would be intelligently designing at least aspects of that organism. But you will agree with me that the mother and the father would be intelligent, right? And they can make their minds up about having offspring, right? Absolutely. Every animal does that. That is at least. Well, I wouldn't say every. Most, let's say most mammals do that and a great many bird. Okay, so I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. I believe that, again, I believe I'm a human, not an animal. All right, so I'm giggling a little bit because I'm trying to like, you know, tick all of this and whatever. So, no, I actually believe that that when two intelligent people come together and they plan to have a child, or they don't plan to have a child, that there's an intelligence going on there for them to have offspring. We don't have to approve of that, that's fine, all right? But tell me this, I'm sorry, okay. Do you not think, though, that that's kind of out of left field? Like that has nothing to do with the traditional definition of intelligent design? Well, there's a traditional definition of intelligent design and then this is what we actually believe about intelligent design. A lot of us Christians actually do believe that that has to do with intelligence. I mean, I will say anecdotally, I've never met a Christian creationist or otherwise that suggests that intelligent design includes humans procreating by sort of just deciding to do so. But that's just me, I mean, you know, I can't argue with your experience if you've experienced otherwise, you know?  My other question for you is, you are obviously an evolutionist and you believe that we share a common access to a baby, right? Very much. You also believe that we share a common access I'm sorry, do you wanna finish what you were saying? No, I just agree with you. Okay, so you also believe we share a common ancestor with a gazelle, right? Yes. You believe that we share a common ancestor with a frog, right, cobalt animal? Okay. Very much. Could you do me a favor? Because I know you like to do the screen share thing and everything and whatnot and I know you probably got the tree of life somewhere on your computer or something like that. Can you do me a favor and explain to me how we get new anatomical features in order for me to prove that I'm related to these other animals? Did you look at my DNA? You look at the DNA of a frog. We both got two different DNAs. So I need to see the in-between work. Yes. And I know people here for that, but I still wanna see this tree of life again. You don't mind? Yeah.  No, I would like an exploit. I would like you to show me the tree of life and then explain to me how I'm related to a frog because what I constantly say here on net all the time is, and a lot of the evolutionist washiness knew I was gonna say this to you, all right? If you're gonna say I'm related to a frog then somewhere on my family tree, you gotta be able to show me where it is and how we went from being a frog. Obviously, there's small changes over a long period of time. How we went from being a frog to a human. You understand what I'm saying? A frog to a very different-looking frog to a very different-looking frog. You don't gotta go through every step, but explain it in such a way where you can show me that I'm actually related to a frog other than what you learned in school. I actually wanna hear and see how you came to this conclusion that I share a common essence of frog and then I'll tie it in with what I believe about intelligence. Sure, well, I think the first thing that you have to start with, because I mean, we would agree that that's a rather large question because you can come at it from a bunch of different angles. You could look at genetics and you could say, well, it's often convenient that the genetics that you share with the frog, like if you're just looking at coding base pairs, they seem to follow, like let's say you took a frog, a mouse, and a resus macaque, which is like a monkey, right? If you look at those, and let's actually, let's add an additional one on there. Let's say that you have a lung fish, a frog, right?  If you compared all your genomes side by side, what you would find is that you share most in common with a resus macaque, then a mouse, then a frog, then a lung fish. Is it not a bit coincidental that that matches up with what we find in the fossil record? For instance, the first sort of lung fish-esque organisms that we find, which would be sort of, if you're used to not, they're on these kind of early sarcophage regions that are spinning a lot of time inland. If you look at their hands, quote unquote, hands, you'll find that they're starting to get the differentiation that all of the rathen fish, or rathen organisms have lacked, right? So why is it that you can time it that way? Additionally, when you do what's sort of molecular clock analysis of your divergence from let's say members of a Nura, right? So you're just your classic frog. That time also matches up with the radiometric dating for the fossils when we see that divergence in the record. These are two completely independently related means of dating things. And yet they're giving you the same result, which is that approximately sometime during the Devonian period, which would be several hundred years ago, I believe 230 something, maybe. I can't give you the exact number. I should know this, but I don't. That if you go back that far in time, right? You're getting a convergence of molecular clock data, right? Fossil record divergence and sort of this lack of any other organism emerging that under sort of a younger creationism lens should be there at that time. Okay. And that says nothing to do with rock dating. We can agree with that, yes? For right now, yes, good. So why do they match? Why do they match? You mean with the fossils in the rock dating? With like fossil record, right? And genetic molecular clocks, which is basically when you take a trait, you look at its mutation rate and you track it backwards to try to find, or it's trait, you take an organism, you look at its mutation rate and you track it backwards as far as you can, right? You can do this with very, very nice accuracy now. That kind of goes off a little bit of what I was asking you though. Like, okay, so I get that you're using rocks and you're using fossils within rocks to try to determine like how old it is and everything about that. But that's not really answering my question about how I'm related to a frog though. You know what I'm saying? There are supposed to be changes that happens in every generation of the offspring of the frogs, some of them will get bigger, there's so much mutation, some of them will be bigger, some smaller, some of them will be more green, some of them will be more brown or whatever, some of them, their tongues will go longer, you know, help them adapt into the environment, everything and whatnot. But at some point, this frog has to create different features, new anatomical features is in order for it to be something that's not a frog to get to where we are, you know, with apes. That's the only way I can be related.  How does that happen? Well, if you're asking for it sort of on a genetic level, like how do we- On a genetic level, yeah. That's what you're asking. So like the addition of new information, that's what you're asking. Okay, so there's this really fascinating, two actually very interesting studies on body plant genes. So I believe they're called hox genes, right? And then also another gene that's interestingly enough called the sonic hedgehog gene. And essentially what the researchers did is they looked at the development of the ends of limbs for fish, right? And they analyzed how you, because you know, we've seen a fish been before, they have a lot of rays that stem out way more than five digits. It turns out if you influence the genes that are responsible, not only for triggering that growth, but also for spreading out and creating those many rays, right? If you influence those genes, you can influence the number of digits that that happens, right? So let's say you're going from, you know, a fish with fins to a tetrapod of frog. Well, for one, that's how you're going to get from a ray fin to a digit of limb, right? But... Well, that's the DNA change into that though. You know what I mean? How does the information create these new features of? When a mutation happens, and Ken Hovind, I've heard him explain this to you before, or to someone else. You know what I mean? A mutation with the extra finger, that's the same information. You know what I mean? Another eye, that's the same information. You know what I mean? Another arm or whatever, another head all together. You know, sign me, swim or whatever. You know what I mean? That's the same information. In order for me to be related to a frog, and this is something that I ask when YouTube on a regular basis, I'm doing this sincerely. I need to know how these features change in order for me to take it seriously that I'm related to a frog. I've been to the Museum of Natural History. I've been there with some pretty smart people, and none of them has been able to show me how you go back far enough. Even back to the cell to be able to show me how these amatomic, they tell me what they think happened, what they theorize has happened, but they've never been able to prove it. And that's what I'm trying to find. Like how does the DNA mutate to such a point where it's no longer another arm or another leg or another eye or whatever, but it becomes a totally new amatomic feature altogether. So let's look at it from this point of view. I think that this kind of exercise is a good one to explain where we're coming from because creationists and those who are not creationists generally have a pretty different idea of what new information is. Okay. This is the example that I use. So if you had a sentence, a very short sentence, and it says the cat, right? Well, what if you get a duplication event? So then it says the cat cat, okay? Now what if there's a mutation in that second or the first word cat, right? So change that letter C to a letter, or rather the second one rather these. I was correct the first time. The second word cat in the letter C, get an S. So then you have the cat sat. Right. Let's say there's another mutation that duplicates sat. So now you have the cat sat sat. And then let's say there's another mutation that changes that D in the first word sat to, or the T in the first word sat to a D. So now you have the code in the DNA, right? And how it's different, right? Okay. So now you have the sentence, the sad cat sat. Okay. You get what I'm saying? Yeah. So the other information conveyed in the sentence, the sad cat sat, then in the word, or in the sentence the cat. Right. So that's what we're dealing with here. Duplication events compounded by just even single base pair mutations or sometimes entire segments can give you vastly different anatomical features, not just in how it's sort of transcribed in the genes itself, but even in how it's expressed. You see what I mean? Okay. So we're going to get out of different possibilities in just a sentence as small as the cat, right? How many three letter words do we know? Right. And I mean- The point of the matter is though, what we actually observe every day is again, if a frog has a certain type of leg and it's experienced a mutation, it's going to have the same type of leg, it's going to have the same type of eye, the same type of whatever. We don't see this new feature when we're seeing it turning into a different type of, when I go say a different type of species but a different kind. Because in order for me to be related to a cold-blooded animal, you have to have that. And I don't see evolution as doing that. And it goes back to what I said in my presentation that that's an argument for intelligent design, that God-contentionally designed, as a matter of fact, Ken Hoven teaches us like this.  If the bird is constantly evolving, and yes, I do believe in microevolution or variations within the kinds, I believe that you can have a parrot that will give offspring and that parrot will look slightly different than its parents. And those parrots will have offspring that looks slightly different from their parents, but they're still parrots. In order for me to be on that family tree, we have to see these new amatomical changers in order for me to be related. If I don't see them, I believe that there's reasons to doubt Darwinian evolution and not accept it in intelligent design rules. So there are a couple of things to kind of take apart with that. One, if you'll remember from my presentation, I covered quite a few kind of segments of irreducible complexity. And one of them was the flagellum. So when you say things like adding new information, how do you get from a leg to a wing, for instance? Which appears to be, wow, quite a difficult situation. But when you look at the flagellum, right? They actually, if I remember the paper correctly, they took about 51 bacteria, right? Of varying stages of flagella. You know what I mean when I say flagella? Like the little tail that comes off of the end of the bacteria or whatever, microorganism. They looked at a bunch of different stages and they realized that when they map the genome for the flagella, what they actually find is that every single kind of flagella is just an alteration of a precursor flagella. Which means you can track it backwards through their genome. And when they did that, what they found out, which it's very short paragraphs, I'll just reread it, that the results show that the core components of the bacterial flagellum originated through a successive duplication. So that's your cat-cat modification of a few or perhaps even a single precursor gene. So the point of the matter is that there isn't a single trait in the entire animal kingdom, except perhaps the movement from single cellular organisms to multicellularity. That is novel. Every other kind is just a, it's an alteration of a previously existing structure through genetics or genetic expression. Now to add on to that, when you say a kind, right? I'm gonna ask you a question. Is house-cap the same kind as a tiger? Sorry, say that again? In your opinion, is a house-cat the same kind of animal in the biblical sense as a tiger? I look at a cat and a tiger's gene if you wanna, you know, I think it's possible that if all you did was use tigers and you haven't given all springs and you did selective, what is it? Selective breeding, you know what I mean? It's possible you get something that small and it could be a house-cat. I don't have an issue with that, but that still would fall under micro evolution and not macro. When we get to the macro level, that's when you started making the argument that human beings can be related to these different animals. And I just don't see that, you know what I mean? That's not the point I'm trying to make. If you think, and I'm getting the idea that you do, if you don't, you can correct me. But if you think that a house-cat and a tiger, as many creationists can and do, would kind of agree with you that they are the same kind because they're both felids, right? Well, then you run into something of a difficult snafu because house-cats and bangle tigers. I don't believe that, Bobo. I'm just letting you know that though. Oh, you don't think they're the same? It's possible that the creator could have made house-cats. I'm just telling you, I wouldn't have a problem if it turned out that we can take tigers or lions or whatever and we can do selective breeding and we can make, and we can, I don't know after like maybe a thousand years or whatever, get house-cats or whatever. And we have an issue with that because they're both felines. The issue I'm having with this conversation and with this debate, with evolution, it's not just you, it's with the audience too, it's with the evolutionists in general. In order for me to be related to a cat, there has to be new anatomical features who can no longer be a feline no more. You can get smaller, you can get bigger. You can be as big as a dinosaur. I don't have an issue with that.  At some point, the science has gotta be able to show how the DNA is mutated in such a way where it's no longer a cat no more.  Or I can't be in that family tree. Yes, I'm with you and we'll get to that. And I would love to get to that in just a second, but I kinda wanna make this point here. Let me put it a different way. Do you think that cats and tigers share a common ancestor in the form of some kind of basal created kind cat? Do I believe that a cat and a tiger have a common ancestor? I believe that they're related. Okay. I wanna see you that way. I believe that they're related. So then there's something of a snafu because common house cats and dangle tigers share when you compare their genome side by side, they share about 95.5% of their DNA as being similar, right? But humans and chimpanzees share, depending on who you're talking to and whether you're looking at coding day spares or not, 95 to 99%. So why from an empirical sense, right? Because at least with Kent, I had a very similar conversation which is that he wants to say that there's a scientific basis. Right. If you wanna tell me that you're not an animal and you're not an ape, and the reason is because you accept the very literal version of Genesis and of the Bible, that's cool. The problem comes when you say that it's scientific because by the same criteria that you're using to place house cats and tigers as related to each other, they classify moreover for not just humans and chimps, but gorillas, orangutans, and all of the humans. So do you see what I'm saying? You have a double standard for related. No, no, no, no, no. I don't have a double standard. I have a point because again, I see cats producing cats, I see dogs producing, well, I see dogs producing dogs, felines producing felines. But when it comes to humans and apes, like I said, there's a big difference between the two animals and we can reason them. You know what I mean? I ain't gonna say that they don't think. I'm just gonna use reason there for a moment right now. But we can reason that they can't. We don't behave like them. We're not in zoos, they are. We have dominion over them like the Bible says and they don't. You understand what I'm saying? There's a lot of differences between us and them. You know what I mean? They don't cook their food. And then on top of that, and this is something I mentioned in my opening statement, evolution is supposed to help us adapt to the environment. There's a big difference between the ape and me and you. When the ape is going out in the wild, this ape has fur and the fur is used to keep it warm. It also has a lot of body fat there too. They also keep it warm there too, right? Us as human beings, we gotta wear clothes. That doesn't make no sense. There are those of us that live in some really cold climates that if evolution was true, we would be able to retain all of that fur in order to survive in those environments. But we're not. And one of the things that is taught by evolution is that we have to adapt to the environment. So let me answer both of those questions in as quick succession as I can. All right, gotcha. When you're kind of conflating two things, at least that's what I'm picking up. You're saying that evolution constantly makes things better, but then you're also sort of accepting the facts that better depends on the environment. There is no ultimate fitness, right? There is no, this animal will ultimately be more fit than any other animal, because the second you change the environment, what is most fit changes? So for instance, let's take bacteria that makes you sick for an example, right? If you have a bacteria that makes you really, really sick, right, when it gets into your system, right?  But what happens when it doesn't kill all of them? And then some of the bacteria, the ones that aren't killed by the antibiotics reproduce and create, you know, super bacteria essentially. They're antibiotic-resistant bacteria. If you put these antibiotic-resistant bacteria into a totally separate environment where there are no antibiotics, it's going to survive at a lower rate than the regular old bacteria. Which one survives and causes you the most problems, changes whether or not antibiotics are present?  So the same is true with any organism across the board. Now, I want to give an explanation with regard to chimpanzees, right? So chimpanzees are absolutely quite a bit stronger than we are. But have you ever seen a chimpanzee try to paint or try to throw a ball on like fun videos about the zoo, like zoo videos on YouTube? I kind of want to get back to this topic about like what we just got finished talking about. This is entirely relevant. I kind of move the goalposts. I actually want to talk about that topic again now. I kind of want to go back here about being fit and all. And I want to talk about that for a minute. Trust me, it's relevant, G-Man. So when a chimpanzee tries to paint, they can't do it. They go like this. And the reason is because from an evolutionary perspective, the way that their muscles are set up is very different from a modern human. It's also why they can't throw very well. They have way less dexterity than we do. So while they may be much stronger, dexterity when it comes to throwing, you know, projectile weapons as a hominid on this data would be heavily selected for against having pure brute strength. So you see why, again, we're moving the environment from being in a crowded jungle, where throwing a spear isn't going to get you anywhere, and being brutally strong is better. To being in open savanna, the environment has changed. We're dealing with the different, you know, different antibacterial resistant organisms versus regular old bacteria, right? Well, now it's advantageous to you to not necessarily be brutally strong, but to have great precision when you're throwing a sharp object. All right. So I really just want to get back to this other topic here regarding the, you know, the relationship between us and the relationship between us and- Wait, did you see how that was relevant? No, I don't. And I'll fly back to this here a minute. And I got my reason for this, okay? Because this is a hot topic here, okay? If we evolve from these ape-like creatures in the end, I mean, I don't know all of the orders of them. I don't have them in front of me and normally when I have them in the data, I'll have my ball in the front of me. But the point of the matter is we're supposed to be evolving from an ape-like creature. The ape-like creature doesn't lose its fur in a colder environment. The way evolution is, the way evolution is, it's talked about among scientists, okay? If they are supposed to adapt in the environment and only the strongest ones are supposed to survive the environments, okay? Then we human beings shouldn't be losing our fur. We should be gaining more fur in places like Canada and in places that are really cold and climate. Hold on a second, let me ask you, why do you think an ape wouldn't lose its fur if you put it in a, let's say a temperate climate. Let's say you took 60 chimpanzees, right? And you put it in tempered America. What do you think would happen to their fur now that they're experiencing winters? Is it gonna get bigger?  If they're supposed to gain more fur so that they can survive and the ones that don't survive, the ones that are coming, hold on a minute, when they're losing their fur, they're gonna die off. But the ones that have more fur, all the ones that's actually gonna strive to survive, right? So that's true then, if they're trying to be evolving, then we're supposed to have a lot of fur during our, in these colder environments. That's not what we're seeing. What happens when you put a chimpanzee into a hotter environment? Well, in a hotter environment, in a hotter environment, if evolution is true, which it is not, they are supposed to lose it. I believe that these animals are designed, I believe these animals are designed to live in certain parts of the world, to survive in certain parts of the world, and there is no proof at all. And the entire conversation we've been having here, you have not been able to give me any sound, scientific evidence to suggest that new anatomical features are gonna show up to show that I'm related to a primate. Human, you realize that you just prove my point. How did I do that? Human beings, right, are distant ancestors, of course, but why do you think, according to evolutionary theory, humans lost their fur because they went from being in a hot human jungle, right, where they're at least protected by the trees and the fur is sort of an assistance when it comes to kind of rustling through all of those branches, and indeed it's less arid, than say an extremely arid, very hot savanna where fur of a chimpanzee's length is incredibly... I didn't prove your point. I proved my point because there are people still living in these cold environments and they don't have this fur. Again, if we evolved from these animals, hold on a minute, if we evolved from these animals, we would still have this fur. Again, there is no scientific data to suggest that these amatomical features came about and show that we're related to them. However, I could sit here all day long and explain why a common designer would make these animals in a certain way for them to survive in a certain environment. And the funny thing is, the evolution is watching this, they're gonna say, oh, you know, the people that say in G-Man 1, I gotta say G-Man lost, and I'm gonna ask them later on about how did she prove that there was any amatomical features that it wasn't even there? And I wanna get to the fossils at some point, so I'm gonna get to the fossils next. We can, but I wanna take a moment because you've said quite a bit and I want to explain precisely the problem with what you just said and why, indeed, I feel that you proved my point. So according to evolutionary theory, humans lost their fur because they transitioned thanks to a movement of the Eastern African Rift into a Savannah-like environment and it would have been very advantageous on top of the fur. And you asked, well, then why don't humans that live in cold climates have fur? Here's the exact reason why. The reason is because to lose the fur, it took about 12 to seven-ish million years according to evolutionary theory. How long has it been since we've lost, how long do you think it's been, and I'm gonna answer this myself, since humans began moving north according to evolutionary theory, because you're complaining that it's... I don't believe the Earth is millions of years old I believe that the Earth is thousands of years old.  With you, but what I'm saying is, according to evolutionary theory, because what you previously said is evolution creates these... The problems are created by evolution as a concept for itself and then it can't solve those problems. I'm trying to explain to you why, if we're going to accept evolution as a conventional form of science, these problems cease to exist. So here's my point. I hope you're still with me. I'm listening to you.  You're not making your point, but yeah. Humans 300,000 years ago, again, according to evolutionary theory, started to leave Africa, right? Homo sapiens started to leave Africa. Earlier than that, we see Heidelbergensis leave Africa, and we see Erectus leave Africa, right? Are you still with me? No, we don't see that. That's what they tell us we see. We're going with according to evolutionary theory. So we're going under that assumption. These individuals spread out, but since that has happened, it has been less than one million years. And in addition to that, humans started doing what? Wearing clothes, wearing the skins of the animals that they killed. That means the selection for fur to come back so like the Harrier humans would survive in the colder environments is gone. It's out of here. There is no selection for more fur on humans because they're wearing clothes now. Do you see why under an evolutionary worldview, this isn't contradictory? Is that a faith or is that an empirical? I'm just curious. Is that what? Is that a faith or is that empirical? Well, based off of the fact that we have so probably hundreds, maybe even thousands of fossil individuals through geologic time and indeed across geologic space.  I'm sorry, I didn't get that. You have thousands of what? Of fossils? I don't think you can look at a fossil until that a fossil was wearing dead skins. The faith or is it empirical? You can when you find them with the skins, G-Man. You can when they're wearing the skins. Again. Again, well, actually, can you show me proof? Can you show me proof? A hundred percent. Do you want to see it right? You want me to take the time right now to pull this up? I want you to show me the proof. We used to see a neanderthal wearing skins, not a museum, doing what they think happened. I want to see a picture of the neanderthal wearing a skin. That's what I want to see. Done deal.  I've never met a neanderthal before, so I mean, this is going to be pretty cool. So, all right. Interesting. I know it's a faith-based position, but let me see it. Interestingly enough, in past debates, I've brought this up a couple of times, but I had a, or actually my current boyfriend's father did 23 and me and found that his father had up to five percent neanderthal DNA, which is very interesting. Okay, so can I see this neanderthal wearing a skin? Absolutely, G-Man. I don't think you got that. I think what you got is a picture, but I still want to see it, though. Wait, G-Man, hold on, hold on just a second, hold on. If I show you a picture of a skeleton, if I go to the trouble, because keep in mind, I'm not about to put a half-hearted effort into finding these sources for you. I'm going to find you an excellent, herstene picture. And if I do, are you going to tell me that one, it's a conspiracy, or two, that I can't prove it or close them in its life? Because I'm not going to go to the trouble if you're going to tell me one of those two things. Well, I don't know what I'm going to say. I got to see it. I'm asking you if I can show you- I don't know what I'm going to say. I need to see it, though. Yeah, but I'm not going to go to the effort if you're going to give me one of those two answers. Well, I don't know what I'm going to tell you. I got to be to see it first. And I guess we're at an impasse and I'll have to send it to you after the debate. Okay, then you can do that then. Well, I'm going to assume that it's a faith and that it is not empirical because none of us was here when this animal was doing this. Okay? And if it's a faith and it's what they thought happened or what they think happened, okay? Then you can't automatically assume that you're right about what you're saying. At this point, I can say that you're indoctrinated and that you have received this from your teacher and you've completed it because you're telling you this. Eman, did you just call an animal? I'm going to be able to prove that this actually happened. Did you just call any end or call an animal? No, I'm talking about it from an evolutionary perspective. Right, but you just said- I don't believe Neanderthals existed. I believe that there are human beings. I believe that we are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God. That's what I believe. I believe that we have a common, I believe we have a common designer. And I believe that the reason why animals behave the way they behave, human beings behave the way they behave and the reason why things goes on in the world when there's creation is because we have a common designer. I do not see any evidence whatsoever. And Manje, you can go back and look at this video if you want after we have this debate. There is no evidence in this entire debate between you where you have shown how the DNA mutates in such a way, you can tell me a theory I would have, but you got to be able to prove it has happened when these animals had these new anatomical features and then a fossil record, okay? You say you want to talk about the transition. Hold on, hold on, hold on. There are zero transitional forms. What you're asking me to do, you realize this right, what you're asking me to do is precisely what you said you weren't asking for at the beginning. Right. When we first started, you said, I'm not asking you to provide every single step. I'm just wanting, you know, how does it go from point A to point B? So I provide a mechanism and I provide an example in the form of the flagella or indeed in the form of the tetrapods. And I show the fossil evidence, I show that for birds and I show that for tetrapods, but you look at that and you say, well, what about the transition between tectallic and pandaric, or I can't the stega? And then I say, well, we don't have one yet. And then you're going to say something along the lines of like, see that proves it. You know what I'm going to say, you got to let me say it and before you could say what I'm going to say, you can't do that. Because if I did that with you, then you would tell me that I'm assuming and I know how the whole assumption game goes. And I want to give you an opportunity to say it. So I don't put words in enough. That's very disrespectful for me to do something like that. That's why I want to see it first. Because then if I concede, if what I see can be proven scientifically, if I can't see it, then you can't ask me to lie. I have to look at what you're going to show me and then make a decision based on what I'm looking at. Based on the information that I presently have on this. So here's the thing though with that, G-Man. And I've done this before with people. The reason I'm wary is because I have been burned by this exact kind of thing before, where I say something along the lines of like, well, what would an ape man transition look like to you? And then they refuse to provide an example. So because they're concerned, obviously, that when I pull up a picture, it could potentially match that. That's why I'm saying if I'm going to go to the trouble to pull up one or hopefully three, if I'm doing this right, sources to bolster my point that Neanderthals indeed wore clothes, then I need to know whether or not that's going to make a difference in your world to you. Otherwise, I'm using up debate time for something that I don't even know is going to make a difference to have you potentially. Well, you told me earlier before we started this show that you're mostly going to be talking to the audience. If I don't receive what you're going to say, you can say audience, I don't know if G-Man is going to accept this, but let me tell you why this is what I believe. I'm being as sincere as possible with this. Absolutely. Like I said, I went to the Museum of Natural History with like five people who are evolutionists. We was friends at the time, it was, I think we were. And when we went there, they showed me some things. I agreed on some things and I disagreed on some things. What I'm saying is you got to be able to show me what you're talking about. After I see what you're talking about, then I can make a decision on what you're showing me. If not, we can go through the fossils if you like. Well, but the thing is, is that I'm not willing to take time out of the debate for something that I don't know is going to make a difference. Because as I did say in our conversation beforehand, the reason that I have these conversations is because my hope is that someone in the audience might get something out of it, whatever that may be. But that doesn't mean that I'm not going to just not engage in the conversation with the other person. Otherwise I'd just make videos and I'd not debate at all. Because then I'd know that the audience is just getting my content. The conversation, the discussion is part of it. It's important. Now, I mean- Right, right. We can get to the fossil record if you want. If the amatomic- I mean, that's fine. And, you know, hopefully, and I will tell this to the audience then, once I have some time not engaged in conversation, I'll find sources for you and place them in the comments. And, G-Man, I hope you will check them out as well. I look at everybody's sources. Everybody. I'm glad that's a good practice. G-Man's read all the sources. We will go to- No, I didn't read all of the sources. We'll go to any source that exists. We will go to the Q&A soon. Thanks for your patience. It's all good, trust me. He hasn't- I was kidding. He hasn't read every source. Okay, go ahead, Erica. It's good with me, too. I'm all for passion, you know? I'm just trying to- Honestly, G-Man, I'm trying to figure out what you want. I'm trying to figure out, you know, because I feel honestly, and I do want to talk about the fossil record, but I feel like you'll ask for something and I'll explain it, and then it's either not good enough or- But you can't explain why it's not good enough. I guess it's because you want something very stepwise, which mutation by mutation I cannot provide, nor do I think anyone will ever be able to provide a mutation by mutation step from a single cellular organism to modern humans. But by all means, what fossils would you like to discuss? I want to see the fossils from- Okay, again, one of my big things, honestly, truly with evolutionists is when they tell me, again, like I'm related to a gazelle, right? Or I'm related to a deer, I'm related to like a bear or something like that, right? I want them to show me the transitional fossils between the, I don't know, whatever animal, from that animal to a human, because I know that there's a lot of shady things that's going on in the evolutionary, I'm not saying you, because I don't think you're an archaeologist, I don't think you've been out there and excavated bones and said it was, I'm not seeing you. But there are people in power who are scientists who have kind of messed with the information a little bit. You understand what I'm saying? I do, but I'm not- Why don't you don't necessarily got to show me all the steps? I need to see enough of them to be able to get your understanding on why you believe I'm related to a bear. Like you can see a bear, right? Then you can show me how it could have branched off and then you could have shown me like how the changes could have happened to show me how, you know, you got to a human to show me relation, you know what I mean? If you can do that, then I'm more receptive to what you have to say, if you can't, then I have to call out evolution as being a bear. I don't understand why that's not precisely what I did at the beginning of this debate. I mean, from my perspective, the fact that two entirely independent methods corroborate one another, that is to say molecular clock, genetics, things like this, and the age of the rock that we find fossils in completely independent from one another, they match up like almost perfectly, you know? And the interesting thing is about that is the same goes for these transitional fossils, right? I mean, you're not going to find, like let's take the ancestor of one of the ancestors of like dogs and bears, relative of dogs and bears, an amphycyonid, probably looked very much like a dog and a bear or rather a wolf and a bear mixed together, right? The thing is that we find this animal in strata, right? In rock strata, where we way lower than we find any dogs and any bears, that is to say any canids and any ursids way below. So that combined, and interestingly enough, this is my point here, when you date that amphycyonid and then you go and do a molecular, like you try to find a divergent time in the genes for bears or canids rather and ursids, they match. So why, from my perspective, I don't, it is beyond me how that is not at least convincing in some aspect to use an individual when you're like, well, how do you prove that, you know, a dog and a bear share a common ancestor? Well, because they're molecular divergent time and they're fossil record divergent time match and they shouldn't under your worldview. They should be, one should be at a left, maybe get one match in the entire animal kingdom. But the problem is we get these matches over and over and over again with numerous different genera across time and across the animal kingdom. So it doesn't make sense to me like what you're asking for. To me, that answers the question. Everybody's got a different set of burdens. Everybody has got their own set of burden approved. You know what I mean? Me, not burden approved. I have a certain amount of evidence that is gonna take to convince me of anything. I'm one of the hardest people on this net, on the internet to change my mind on anything. So if I ask you for a certain amount of evidence for something and I see a person can do it and I try to find somebody who can.  And I thought some underfoot. I talked to Dragon, I talked to Fiona, she's got a PhD. I talked to some pretty smart people and I realized a smart guy when it comes to evolution. However, however, I can't, me and you are different.  And a lot of people get frustrated talking to me about it, so I understand how you feel. So what would that, two things.  One, what kind of evidence would convince you? And then two, what kind of evidence convinces you that Young Earth creationism is so powerful of such a parsimonious explanation? I'll do the Young Earth one first. I think you already know what I'm gonna say for the first question. The Young Earth, yes, I'll openly admit that the Bible has a lot to do with that. I'll openly admit that, okay? And I go by the time frame that's in the scriptures. However, I am open to the Earth maybe being, I don't know what, 10,000 or 15,000 years old. I have a friend on YouTube, Coach One Parasitism, he makes arguments for this and I'm more likely to take his position than I am for millions of years, all right? So the Bible has a lot to do with that. Plus, I don't trust the dating system that they have on how they're going about determining how old a rock is. I've done some research and have seen that some of these dating methods have shown that one rock will be millions of years old or thousands of years old, and then they'll go test a rock that was recently made because it was chiseled off a boulder or whatever or a pebble or whatever. And then that one will be like thousands of years and it isn't, the rock was just there. You know what I mean? Can't say that it's millions of years old. And then they're telling me that these fossils are millions of years old and they're finding red blood cells inside of these fossils. There's a lot of problems with the theory of evolution. Then there's Lucy. They didn't even find the whole thing and they're claiming this is how Lucy walked. You know, and they won't even admit that this is what we think she looks like. They're telling us this is what she was like. This is how she walked. This is how she interacted in the environment and that's not true. They have to say that is a fake and that this is what we think happened. Now, to answer your first question, honestly, you can't show me the amatomical features. Maybe you can't do it today because of the time that we have in this debate. You only have 10 minutes to be fair in your opening statement. We'll be the transitional point. That's why I didn't want to go into that because that would have been totally unfair because I would have had you talking for, we probably wouldn't have been talking about nothing else had we went into the fossils. I would love to have a conversation about that with you at another juncture for sure because I very much like the fossils. I think that with regards to your first, I wanna make a quick comment about radiometric dating. So I've seen, again, I was a young earth creationist when I was in middle school and very lightly into high school but it told us the same thing. And they had a lot of different sort of examples usually from Mount St. Helens or New Zealand volcanic rock and things like that. And I found that compelling at the time but once I looked into it, one, you can't date brand new volcanic rock because they're physically, you can't. Like there hasn't been enough decay to actually get an accurate reading. That's why you get wild readings all across the clock because not enough decay has actually occurred, right? In conjunction with that, radiometric dating is vitally important to the natural gas industry, the oil industry and the coal industry and they use evolutionary assumptions quote unquote to find these things. While I think, to summarize, right? One, there's a huge problem with the examples that creationists use and two, they completely never touch on at least in my experience, the hundreds upon thousands of times radiometric dating has yielded correct dates to the degree in which that it impacts our economy greatly. So I think you, I wanna recommend a book to you when I was, I'm not gonna talk about sort of my religious beliefs but there's a book called The Bible Rocks in Time. It's by two Christian geologists. They're both, I'm not sure if they're old earth or theistic evolutionists or what but they're excellent geologists regardless. And they lay it out in like 115 pages just why radiometric dating works so well. The authors, who are the authors? Let me pull it up, hold on. All right, and while you're doing that, hello everybody out there in TV land, me. I don't hate Erica, we're just having a spirited conversation about science. Okay, Davis Young and Ralph F. Steerly. So I have it upstairs, but cause I'm actually at my parents house right now. Let me write that down, let me get that again. Davis who? It's Davis Young and Ralph F. Steerly, S-T-E-A-R-L-E-Y. It's called The Bible Rocks in Time. You said Ralph Steerly? Ralph Steerly. Ralph, gotcha. So I really recommend that you check it out, G-Man. If that book isn't gonna turn you into at least an old earth creationist, nothing's going to. It's very compelling in the whole first third, like talks about sort of very, it's pretty theology heavy actually, very interestingly enough, but the stuff that it covers you know, covers Green River formation, Mount St. Helens, all that good stuff. Are you aware why many of us believe that the earth is young and what our positions, cause we never really, if you think about it, in this debate, we really didn't talk about nothing, if you really think about it, but are you aware of why we believe the earth is so young? As far as I know from my conversations with young earth creationists, it comes from the estimates of sort of how old the generation estimates by Bishop Lightfoot, Usher Lightfoot. So he was the center of light who, I don't know, Bishop Usher and Lightfoot, separate people I think. This is just the calm down to conversation so we don't like, we so attack it on each other. Yeah, sure. Really fast, I would love to, if you want to, G-Man, I would love to have a conversation, can be on your channel, can be anywhere, on Lucy slash transitional fossils. I have a lot to say about Lucy. Okay, great, if you don't mind, I'd like to bring a couple of friends with me and we can talk about it. Okay, please do, we can do a rowdy chat, can be a fun time. I'm gonna need an email address, you can give it to me later, and I can contact you. All right, so if you start from Adam, in the book of Genesis, I don't know if you believe any of that, but if you start from Adam, all the way to Adam to where we are today, some people conclude that the Earth is only about 6,000, 6,500 years old or whatever, right? Now, some people don't necessarily believe that the word day in the Bible necessarily means like a 24 hour day. I think you already know that. Some people believe that it's like a thousand years, some of them think it's a couple of million years long. So that's why you have some creationists that think the Earth is older and you have some creationists that believe that the Earth is younger. I take the position that these are literal 24 hour days. I also open myself up to the possibility that I could be wrong about that. Okay, because I have friends in this community that believe that the Earth is a little bit older and doing a little bit older than what I think. But right now I have no problem saying that the Earth is 6,500 years old. It might be a little bit older. And yes, I can be convinced that if somebody can do a Bible study with me and show me that. You know what I mean? As far as the science go, are you there James? What's going on over there man? Are you all right? I'm totally here. I was just gonna say any moment we should switch over to Q and A. I've just been caught up in all I'd say, and this has been. We can talk on my YouTube channel about this because again, this debate isn't gonna do it. Justice, the amount of things that we need to talk about regarding the fossil record and regarding some other things. And I'm gonna make sure who I bring on my channel is gonna be respectful. Cause I got some friends that ain't gonna be there like, you know, maybe I'll get standing for truth. Then maybe I'll get like, cause you guys are cool, right? Hey man, if I can handle you, I can handle anyone. All right, cool. So you okay now, right?  You're not like no more.  Just because we disagree on things that I would find quite conventional, it doesn't mean I don't like you. All right, cool. Let's stick with that thing, cool. Thank you. All right, man, look at the audience.  Let's get to it right now. Come on. You bet, my pleasure. Okay, thanks so much. Do wanna say a couple of things really quick as quick reminders. First, thanks so much for being with us folks as always, as always fun. And I do wanna quick read first because we wanna say thanks so much, Brian Stevens for being a Patreon patron. And his Patreon question was, G-Man, do you believe if they had completed the Tower of Babel that they would have reached to God as the scriptures put in words one way or another? I apologize, could you repeat that again, James? Not a problem. So Brian Stevens said, G-Man, do you believe that if they had completed the Tower of Babel that they would have reached God as the, in some words. No, no, no. And not only what they have not, they wasn't trying to literally go into outer space. I think what they were trying to do was make them in grief. That's what they were really trying to do. And God stopped that and obviously spread it across the earth or whatever. But they wasn't really trying to go into outer space and all of that, no. Gotcha. Plus we know from Wotan yesterday, space isn't real, so obviously. Next, thanks so much for your question from Joshua Larson who said, G-Man won. Very nice, you got a fan out there, G-Man. Congratulations, G-Man. Michael Dresden says. I won a headache. Michael Dresden says, start now in capital letters. I think those two must have come in before we started the stream. Thanks, Kent, Hovind, cellmate for your super chat as well. Kind of doubt that's really a cellmate. G-Man, I'll get the migraine medication ready. Oh yeah, definitely get the migraine medication ready from totally. I definitely need some of that because I want a headache. I also want an apple and a plum too. I'm gonna make sure I pick that up a little bit later. Listen, my voice is at a very high frequency and it's very nasally. It can induce headaches in some. So take it at your own risk. Gotcha. I am not saying that Erica gave me a headache. I'm just saying I won a headache. Preview of that? Good to know. Next up, appreciate your super chat from Florida Man who says, Lord Frog's glorious ribbit predicts Erica wins. Very nice. Bent Hovind, no relation, says, Dapper Dino is willing to host an after show. Well, absolutely, Dapper Dino, if you email me the link or put it in the live chat, either way, I can link that in the description as well. We're willing to link after shows to both sides of any particular topic. So, Steven, Steven makes your super chat, said, G-Man is only here for Erica's concession speech. Gotcha, thanks. Steven Steen also says, James couldn't- I'm the hardest evolutionist I've ever debated before on the internet. He's the most difficult evolutionist. Very nice. G-Man is a very sweet of you. I appreciate that. Gotcha. That means a lot coming from the internet's best debater of all time. Yeah. Gotcha, thanks very much. No, boy, this is catching on like wildfire. Let's see, and another one, Steven Steen, thanks for your super chat says, James couldn't have come by accident perfection. Thank you, Steven. Next up, Movie Theory says, G-Man already won. Evolutionists are charlatans. Erica, Movie Theory's coming at ya. Listen, I don't know what to say. I knew when I was coming into this that I was debating G-Man.  Gotcha. Thank you very much. Brandon Ardeline, for your super chat, he said, I need a drink. Anyone else need one? Merlin72001, thanks for your super chat, who said, going in, I hope people know, G-Man doesn't know what analogies are and refuses to recognize fallacies. Also loves, in all caps, to make up his own personal definitions for otherwise well-understood terms. Somebody sounds butt hurt. OK, thank you for that. Very nice. I'll have to remember that quote. Schrodinger's cat, thanks for your super chat, who says, I'm extreme isolated at my lake house. No one here. Sorry to hear that, Schrodinger's cat. Hopefully the community in the live chat has made you feel welcome. We're glad to have you with us tonight. And Decepticons Forever, thanks for your super chat. They said, G-Man already lost this. G-Man already lost this, and Erica hasn't even spoken. Not possible. I have a fan amongst the masses. Someone's rooting for me against BG. I've got to congratulate you. You won. I know. I know. Oh, Erica, Erica, Erica. Made me my top 10 for the week. Also found a toad in my garden yesterday, which is nice. Very nice.  She's here. She's in the house. Says, most of the propel on that, OK, I think she meant people. Very embarrassing. On that dissent from Darwinism list, besides the list being almost a decade old, are engineers. G-Man. OK, G-Man, you answer this. I want to comment on that. I actually took a note about that.  You're on top of it, girl. Good, G-Man, sorry. That was for you. Yeah, I like the comment on this. Most of the people that want to debate evolution besides Erica don't got a degree and needs to go to school and learn what the theory is. Gotcha. James, can I chime in? I also wrote down not a single biology or anthropology person and all of the biology relations were on a molecular level. I would be very interested in seeing sort of where they're coming from if it's almost more of they. Once you get to macroscopic life, this is something that's quite doable. Because most of the people, at least in academia, that I know of are Stephen Meyers, et cetera, their problem is usually with a biogenesis. And sort of with those first couple of steps. And I would also be interested to see when that list was garnered and if it's changed since the recent Litticellularity paper came out. Gotcha. Before you say anything, G-Man, let me say something about this. So I've had somebody say that before that there wasn't that many biologists on the list, but there's quite a few of them on there. I got a recommendation for you, Erica. Look at that list before you go into a hangout and say that, because I got some friends on here that will point out all of the biologists on there. Be careful, OK? I'm nice. I got some other friends on here like Neffi McCreary and those guys that are naming all of these guys. Oh, not Neffi. No. Oh, no. Neffi McCreary is in the live chat, I'll let you know. We're excited to have Neffi here. Have you faced Neffi yet, Erica? No, I think Neffi's a secret fan of mine, though. He's showed up in quite a few. I always see him in these chats, and I'm always thinking, oh, Neffi.  He is a, Neffi and G-Man are like two of the oldest in the sense of oldest YouTubers in the sense that they've been in the game the longest. They're legends of YouTube debate. So it's funny that I can't remember who it was. It was Destiny or someone who's, you could say, internet famous. And somehow G-Man's name came up during a debate, and they're like, oh, I remember G-Man. G-Man traces so far back that even these huge name internet famous people know of him. So really funny. Next up, huh? That's a compliment, though. It is. Yeah, both Neff and G-Man. And appreciate that. Let's see. I remember somebody I want to talk to again in a public setting, and then when we get an opportunity, we get to the hour or two after the fossils. I really want to put some time into that. Please do. I've got to bring in my own guys, too, though, because my expertise ends at Fominins when it comes to the fossil. Well, no, my expertise ends at Prinates, because I know a decent amount going back that far. But we're going to be discussing anything other than ant stuff. I've got to be getting the gang together, G-Man. Yeah, your channel. As a matter of fact, I want to take an opportunity, if you haven't seen her YouTube channel yet, because I've taken the notice that you're using or subscribed, why don't you guys go subscribe to Erica's YouTube channel. She's respectful for the most part. She's got a little snarky with the Bible and everything and whatnot, for the most part. Compared to everybody else in this community, she's actually respectful. It comes from animated intros. I've got cute animated intros. That's the big draw. Excellent. We derailed that again. That happened. It's not wrong about evolution, but still, go something. Next up, I appreciate your super chat from Michael Dresden. I'm skipping now. I just mean. Movie theory, thanks for your super chat. I don't know. This one's borderline. I have a feeling this isn't real. Dear Erica, I'm an atheist and haven't talked to a girl before. Will you be my girlfriend? We can watch Star Trek together. Come on, seriously. Very, very kind of you. To the dismay of the hyper nerd community, I am taken, unfortunately. I'm in a very long-term relationship. So he's my biggest fan. He's my first YouTube subscriber. Got to give him a little credit for that. Very nice. Next up, appreciate, why would you even watch Star Trek when you can watch Star Wars? Apollo Jedi. Oh, gosh. Evolutionists are charlatans. Evolution's a myth. I'm assuming that's for me. I didn't agree. They're coming at you. Maynard saves. Thanks for your super chat. He said, 4G, dude, what day, according to God's creation, were mushrooms made? Jargon joke on a moral. I'm confused. Thanks for that. Animorphic, mine. Thanks for your super chat. Who says, does G-Man know that he is the butt of the joke here? Oh, come on. I like it, G-Man. Don't worry about it. Yeah, don't worry about it. Yeah, for the person that said I'm the butt of the jokes, and this is what I would have said if I had my notes. I just remembered this. I would have said in the beginning of this, I would have lost because the majority of the people watching this are atheists.  Yay. Gotcha, appreciate that. I'm in the corner, G-Man. I'm rooting for you over here. I'm a fan. All right, gotcha. I actually care more about the conversation, Erica. I'm more about the, you know, the debate. I don't care about the, about the trolling. Gotcha. Next up, want to let people know, I will pin any debate challenge in the live chat because we love debate. We love these public challenges. It's like WWE Raw, when it used to have during the Attitude Era, like Triple H would come down and challenge Austin.  That's right, the golden years of WWE. But, yes, I will put any debate challenge. That's a real debate challenge. I will pin it. So thanks so much for that.  Thanks for your super chat. Who says, how do you explain the evolution of completely new genes like jingui? Hopefully I'm saying that right. Ooh, is that for me or G-Man? I'm not sure. I would guess it's you, I think. Me? Well, the thing is, is chemistry does a lot of weird things. And most of our sort of novel genomic emergencies, or emergence, I put you in that plural. They show up pretty early because generally the principle with evolution is if it ain't broke, don't fix it, which is why you're not going to see like drastic changes in like how the code of DNA, of DNA works, your base pairs. So I think that, I don't know, I think that's a really good question. I wish I could give you a better answer, but again, I'm not a geneticist. I would point you in the direction of someone whose specialty lies there, as in regard to your specifics, the specifics of that, that's the best I can do. Gotcha, appreciate that. Next up, appreciate your super chat from Stupid Horror Energy, who strikes again, now asking for G-Man, what is a fundamentally new biological feature between chimps and humans? Fundamental, what? What is a fundamentally new biological feature between chimps and humans? That burden is not on me, that burden is on any evolutionist they explain that, especially since they're saying that we're related. I assume stomach acid, I don't know. They have to burden to be able to explain that to me. I'm the one trying to learn about this, you know? Gotcha. I think if you're looking for something rather novel between humans and chimps, a fun one that I like to toad out of me now again is actually humans are the only primates with a chin.  And it's actually one of the ways that when you're looking at the fossil record that you can kind of differentiate humans from say Huddleburgensis or Neanderthalensis because the chin is rather recent. As for what it's for, I'm not sure. I've heard some people say that it helps with sort of our linguistics, the lit movements and things like that. This is a great anchor point, but I am not sure on that. Gotcha, thanks so much. Appreciate, let's see. That super chat as well as Brandon Ardolines, who says Erica can't explain perfect organisms like James. That's very kind of you. It's remarkably similar to Stevens, but it's one of Stevens' soccer cones. Ellen Bupri, thanks for your super chat, who says, James, has your worldview changed after hosting so many debates? I get asked that a lot. I think that's by far the most, it's the only question I get asked, but I get asked it a lot. I would say it's shifted a little bit. I had a lot of training in philosophy before the channel, so philosophy, it hasn't shifted as much as with biology, it's been really fun to learn more about biology, flat earth, all of the natural science stuff. I would say, I mean, I was already a flat earther before I started and I still am, so I mean, pretty much the same. That was a joke, but we love flat earthers. If you're a flat earther, we do hope you feel welcome. I am still a globe earther, and I would say just basically pretty much everything stayed relatively the same, but you could say the reasons for and against have become more like filled in, so I think so much of our beliefs are based on our temperament, and so anyway. Thanks for that question. SuperHor energy, appreciate your, SuperTrader says, G-man, why do dolphins have genes for legs and humans have yolk producing gene fragments? I don't know, but I didn't know this, and dolphins produce dolphins, and dolphins have never produced anything other than dolphins. Gotcha. Hopefully that helps. Thanks for that. Maynard saves, thanks for your SuperTrader. He said, can mushrooms cure UTI? Oh yes, yes. I definitely believe that mushrooms taste good with peanut butter and jelly. I definitely believe that, yes. Do not eat mushrooms if you have a UTI.  And that's some good advice, definitely I reckon, tell them, yeah. Oh, a UTI. The way they spelled it was, okay, gosh. SuperHor energy, thanks for your SuperTrader says, G-man, do you understand that if a cat produced a human, that would falsify evolutionary theory? I never said that a cat had to produce a human. I understand that a cat has to go do small, that a cat has to produce offspring. The offspring has to survive, and then when those cats have their offspring, that they know it's slightly different from their parents, and it's very small changes that happens over a long period of time. In order for evolution to be shown to be true, you gotta be able to show these new anatomical features that these cats are gonna have where they become a different kind of an animal up until the point that you get to apes, and then prove that they have relation with them. If you can't do that, then evolution isn't true. Gotcha. Interestingly enough, though, if over a long period of time you had a feline line, like the feline lineage was reproducing in over, let's say, 12 million years, all of a sudden, through that same lineage that you track back, once you have something that looks vaguely human or vaguely even monkey-like, it would still be a feline. That's the law of monophilies. So for, I think, I'm not saying you, G-Man, but I've met people who don't really understand the law of monophilies, so for those of you out there who don't, now you do. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Appreciate the super chat from Ben Hovind, No Relation, who says, can we get a G-Man and Nathan Thompson debate? Who's Nathan Thompson? G-Man, would you be willing to defend the globe Earth? Would you be willing to, on behalf of us, globers out there, all of them out there, would you be willing to defend the globe against Nathan Thompson?  I don't want nothing to do with it. G-Man, since when did you get too cool for school? Like, this would be an epic debate. G-Man, I'm good. Yeah, I'm good. I believe the arp is round. I don't believe it's flat. We'll get you on a tag team debate as partners debating against two evolutionists. What do you think of that? Well, I definitely got somebody in mind I can do that with. Yeah, I'm gonna come up with that. G-Man. Well, go ahead. G-Man, you and me versus Nathaniel and Wotan. Flat Earth. Come on, G-Man. Oh, you're debating whether or not the arp is flat? No, I think the arp is very round. You and me, globe heads. I'll think about it. I'm kidding, G-Man. I don't think I could debate a flat earth or either. So I'm kind of in the same boat. Sorry, James. I know that's like a dream matchup. Well, we could definitely do another dream match, namely G-Man and Nathan Thompson arm in arm going against Erika and Jackson Wheat on evolution. Oh my God, yeah, I would do that for short. That would be epic, so. I don't know about that either, because. Come on, Beta. If he's a flat earth earth, and I gotta support the flat earth plane, that's not gonna work out. Nah, I'm not doing it. Oh my gosh, G-Man, such a diva. I don't believe the earth is flat. I believe the earth is round, and I believe the flat earth archman is silly, so. You know what? All right, whatever. Let's move up with Dapper Dynum. These would be epic. Yeah, James, you know I'm always down for a good old chat about evolution. Also, I've been trying to change my PowerPoint, so I at least get a little something, a little new flavor every time, so it's not just the same old stuff. But sometimes you just gotta repeat it. It bears repeating. Gotcha. Yes, I know what you mean. And this would be so epic, G-Man. Come on, think about it. Okay, next up, appreciate your super chat from Zee Leaping Bear, appreciate it. They said, at James, to back Alan Bopri, has your view changed after seeing the likes of G-Man Hovind and Duncan, who's over and over? Oh, come on, G-Man's sitting right there. Okay, first of all, I don't do that. And the same person that's making that claim won't actually come into a room and prove that. That's the funny thing about it. I give Erika credit. It took a lot of courage, Erika, to come in here and talk to a person like me, because I could be a pain in the butt. Is Zee Leaping Bear one of the people? Is Zee Leaping Bear one of the people that you call a dragoon? If he's a dragoon, then I will definitely not have a conversation with him. What is a dragoon?  He think he knows everything about science.  You believe all of the problems in the world will be solved if you just do your homework. So, like I said, that's a guy I want to stay with. I like that you got a name for, I like that you got a name for the, that's kind of funny. I like that. It's the most clever thing G-Man has to his name. It is catchy, G-Man. Did you make that up? Did you steal that from somebody? No, no, no. He literally calls his audience to dragoons in their drama, and they're like a drama community that wants to... We, well, before we go too far, just I know that you guys have a history. I don't want to have them represented in a negative light when they're not here to defend themselves. We got in trouble with that once in a while, but I do know, now here, think about this. If I understand right, the word on the streets, the streets of YouTube is that you and Steve McCrae have a common, you might say, enemy. What if you and Steve McCrae teamed up against Drag and Erica? And what topic? Whatever you want, G-Man. This is your world, we're all just squirrels trying to get a nut, okay? First of all, if Drag's gonna be on, Erica's side, the answer's no. So, and then I might not meet so nice, because no, no, God, there's a lot of problems with that. No, no. Oh my gosh, G-Man. I will not be nice next time. No, no, no, no. James, I don't appreciate you trying to ruin me and G-Man's friendship. It just formed. That's funny, that's so true. John Goode is coming at you, though. He says, Erica thinks she is so smart. Ooh, sassy. Yeah, you know, I've gotten that comment a couple of times. I've been called a couple of names. I don't know, I try to be as nice as I can be. I'm not trying to be condescending, but I just like talking about what I know about. I mean, you would not be saying that if you put me in a room with a chemist. Let's put it that way. I talk about what I know, and if I come across as smug, I'm really sorry. That's funny. I think a lot of people are gonna find out that Erica is good at evolution, but when we start getting into the genesis apologetics, I think that would be a little bit different. We never got into it. We never got into it. That's the thing, G-Man. I will be the first person to tell you that I would definitely not know the depths of genesis apologetics. Unless we're talking about the organization genesis apologetics, I feel like I know them decently well, but as far as the topic, no, I'm not an expert in that, nor would I claim to be. I try not to claim things, I can't back up, but I guess I just think I'm so smart. You're not smug. I've never seen that, but I would say a red shot Sherwood is coming at you, G-Man. He says, G-Man Dregnacht does not call his audience the dragoons, you made that up. Did you make that up, G-Man? Okay, red shot Sherwood, he calls his followers Dregnacht, and red shot Sherwood might be a little bit mad at me because it came to my room yesterday when I was doing a hangout, and he was misbehaving and I kicked him out, so that might be why he's blue mad at me. Gotcha, very intriguing. Next up, thanks so much for that. We appreciate the super chat from Decepticons Forever says, James is the final step in hominid evolution. That's really kind of you, bless your heart.  Elaborate on what you mean by that. Erica, can you remind us what your convergence is? So essentially, actually I wasn't actually fully listening because I heard it was a question for G-Man. Repeat one more time, James. Is, okay, so she says G-Man, if similarity is due to a common designer, how do you explain major differences such as convergence and evolution? So essentially there are a couple of different ways that that could go, but basically G-Man kind of has to explain at least the sort of long and short of it is why do we have different solutions to the same problem, right? So if there's a common designer, why are there like three different types of flight? When you've got a butterfly wing, which is vastly different from a bat wing, which is vastly different from a bird wing, which is different from a terasaur wing. So why not just have one solution for flight if I'm getting that right? The common designer likes variety, I guess. The common designer likes variety. A butterfly has to have a certain type of wing to survive in this environment. The bat has to have a certain type of wing in order to survive in his environment and anything else that flies, it just depends on the type of animal is where it is in the world and how it survives in that particular environment. Next up, Dapper Dino asks, if either of you would be, if you have time to go to an after show, he's willing to host it if one of you are able to make it or either of you able to make it tonight? I can make it Dapper D, but for somewhat brief, 45 minutes probably. You got it, gotcha. I would go to a room with Erika, but I already foresee what's going to happen. Me and Erika kind of have like a mutual respect well, I think we got a mutual respect for each other as far as we can go, whatever. But I got a funny feeling because I know how to hang out though that if I go in there, things are gonna be brought up that are not true about me and are gonna be taken out of context or whatever. And Erika's gonna hear it and go, whoa, I didn't know that, wow, I didn't know that. You know what I mean? I'm gonna try to get under my skin and I ain't got time for that. If they wanna have a serious after show, I'll go to that. But if they wanna clown around and goop walk and troll, no. And you cannot allow no dragoons in there. Next up. I can vouch for Dapper Dino, G-Man, that if you requested it to be a serious hangout, he could probably make that happen, but it's up to you. I'll go if it's a serious hangout and I don't want no dragoons in it. Next up.  Keep going, James. Caleb, thanks for your super chat. Also known as Caleb says, Erika, why are Eskimos less furry than Americans? Why are Eskimos less furry? Because we all wear clothes. There's no need to. Humans are a unique species and that we have kind of completely thrown natural selection out the window. It's the same reason why when someone says, why do humans get so many diseases? Why are we so sick? And it's because natural selection, and I'm not saying this is a good thing. In fact, I think modern medicine is excellent and fantastic in every way. But no one is, there's nothing to sort of weed out sick people, right? Like I would probably be dead before the age of 12 because I had pneumonia when I was 12. But it's the same reason. There's no natural selection. If you wear clothes, there's not going to be a selection for thicker fur. Gosh. And appreciate faithful, honest, and true. You're right, I missed your super chat. Sorry about that. This came in early. They said, raw Matt and standing for truth taught Erika real science in all three debates. Oh, Erika, it looks like one of standing for truth's boys is in the house. Faithful, honest, and true shows up on my channel quite frequently and others sort of into who enjoy conventional science, YouTube. Faithful, honest, and true. Anytime you want to have a, I'm still waiting on that email. You only seem to want to have conversations on my channel, which I don't check with some comments on my channel, which I don't check as much as I probably should. But I would love to have a chat with you. I'm always open for that. Gotcha. Thanks so much for your super chat from JacketechLP says, truly Christ like patients from Erika and hi, James. Appreciate that. They think you're towards me, right? Huh? I guess that was towards me, right? No, they meant like patient toward me because I'm always, you know, okay. Sit your feet as a Robbie. Thanks for your super chat. No, G-Man, you were loved. You have no idea how much you were loved. Oh yeah, I'm so loved on YouTube. Yeah. Let's see, this is a very nice Arabia. But one thing I do love G-Man, you have no idea how much I love is that I appreciate so much that you will come and actually take a stance because some people are like, they get into a debate and they get blown over because they just don't have confidence or they aren't assertive enough or among many other things where it's just like, oh my gosh, this is, they're like, they're just getting blown over by the wind. So we appreciate that. You have passion, G-Man, among many other positive qualities. I appreciate that, thank you. You're welcome. Oh, hyper compliment. How come I never get any of this? She's right. Watch out, they're saying that you'd be holding, I don't think that happened, but they're saying you'd be holding, you'd be standing for truth, you'd be me. Of course, they're free to their opinions, but reality is another story, so. That's really interesting. I don't take it personally, G-Man. What they need to do is go sub to your channel. That's what they need to do. Oh, that's very sweet of you. Go sub to G-Man's channel as well. There you are. Yeah, everyone here, Hi. They're all already subbed, you're right. That was a silly thing to say. I, yeah, I don't think I mentioned, so sorry folks. I have linked both of our speakers in the description box. Their links are waiting for you, so if you've enjoyed what you've heard, there is plenty more right down there, conveniently in that description box. And thanks so much for your super chat from Sigifredo Saravia in the house. Glad to see you. Says Erica, are transition animals like humans, hybrids? I think they mean... I think I know what they're saying. Probably not. I mean, the thing is, is that as far as divergence time versus speciation time, you know, one is obviously far before the other, that divergence of the species doesn't mean that those two are reproductively isolated necessarily. So while there might be some strange hybrids in our family tree, you know, on an individual level, sort of on the aspect, if we're referring to a hybrid as like a liger or something like that, then no. Probably not. Gotcha, thanks so much. Appreciate your super chat. They also asked, how did we learn they survived when a donkey or liger is sterile today? And I think they're saying like, how did we learn that animals that were transitions survived when I think they're kind of implying that donkeys and ligers are transitions and they're sterile? I think more what they're implying is potentially that transitional species are sterile, sort of isolated anomalies, right? And my answer to that would be the fact that a great many of the hominins that we use to bolster human evolution aren't single specimens. It's sort of one example that there are one rather reason as to why they're likely not hybrids. And when I say likely, I mean, incredibly likely not to be. The odds too, that you're going to get to, like say with a liger or a mule, like we don't get ligers in the wild because it's quite rare for their habitats to cross. And also when species have a very recent divergence time the offspring isn't always sterile. So you have a couple of things that are making that a very unlikely possibility. I would say that's probably why it's not even considered because the statistic probability that the fossil record is made up entirely of hybrids very close to impossible, I would say. Gotcha, thanks so much. Next up, appreciate your super chat from, let's see, Ciceroferido did ask also why are there limitations in evolution? Is that for me? Yeah. Well, I mean, it depends on what limitations they mean. I mean, sometimes people, I guess it's sort of in reference to sometimes Kent Rubin likes to say, could you ever get a dog as big as Texas? Well, we're not going to get a dog as big as Texas because there's no ecosystem that supports something that large. Usually limits to evolution are placed on an organism or a species rather, by its environment or by its own morphology. So you could never successfully breed that great Dane after great Dane. And so you've got something as tall as say an elephant because it's morphology wouldn't allow for its spindly little legs to hold that kind of weight. So what you would need to do is you would need to select, right, either artificially or in nature, this is natural selection for sort of something that would prepare it for that. Like the relatives of elephants are very stalky and stout with thick limbs. So they were capable of getting quite large without breaking under their weight. Really interesting. And want to say, I'm putting the after show link. So after show, and this will be on Dapper Dino's channel. I'm putting it in the description box right now. So if anybody would like to go check it out, it is conveniently located below. And then G-Man is invited. They said G-Man, you're invited. And they said that they'd be friendly, something to that effect. Where is this? Yeah, they said this is the after show link if you could forward it to G-Man. So I can send that to you if you'd like. I'll send it to both of you after. And thanks so much for Decepticons Forever, your super chat where they said, the Neanderthal wears no clothes, G-Man 2020. David, go ahead. I'm sure that should be your campaign slogan. You have to run for anything, G-Man. No one will get it, but I'll get it. All right, cool. G-Man is not amused, all right? David Beldon. I'm not mad. I'm not mad. I don't get the joke, but it's all right. Thanks for your support. Go ahead. David Bellach, thanks for your super chat. They said, how are sapiens and Neanderthals different species that they produced fertile offspring? Ooh, that one's for me. That's an excellent question. And the answer is species is a very, very hard term to define, because for instance, sometimes, like for instance, we would consider donkeys and horses, right? Completely separate species. And for the most part, when they hybridize, you get infertile offspring. But occasionally, when you have a female, I think it's a female horse and a male donkey, you can get something that is not sterile. So does that still make them separate species? Of course it does. They're genetically vastly different from one another, even on sort of a small scale level. But I would point to the fact that we've sequenced the Neanderthal genome. And while me and the human on this planet who's the most different from me genetically if we compared our genome side by side, we would still be about 99.9% similar. However, when you sequence a Neanderthal genome, at least the five or six of the ones that we've done, they're only 99.7% similar to the average human, which kind of separates them. Now, whether or not it's on a species or a subspecies level is still up for debate, because you're absolutely right, we could produce fertile offspring. But I think they're genetically unique enough and also geographically isolated for the vast majority of their species sort of lifespan. That it's justification for sort of separation from humans on a level, whether or not it's species or subspecies, I wouldn't say. But yeah, that's my best answer to the question. It's a hot topic right now in anthropology. Gotcha, appreciate it. Next up, Super Chat from Colubb or Caleb. Thanks. They said, Erika, why do African lions have such thick fur? I'm assuming they're probably referring to males and it would be the same reason that male peacocks are so, they look so like flamboyantly colorful, right? You would think that would be a negative because obviously it makes them very easy to be spotted by predators, but there's one thing that trumps sort of physical fitness when it comes to overall fitness for a given species. And that's attractiveness to the other species.  So females prefer peacocks that look like that. So they mate more with those ones. So the colorful ones get to reproduce more often. It's very similar with lions. For whatever reason, females very much prefer mained males to non-mained males. And it might be because it's sort of significant of like their overall health because a male lion without a mane would look somewhat sickly according to some female lions, I suppose. But yeah, overall it's a burden. Having that huge mane makes them much slower than their female counterparts even though they are more powerful because they're larger. I would say sexual selections to blame for most of the bad hands that males get across the animal kingdom. Sorry, boy. Super interesting. And thanks so much, Godless Recovery, who says just sending this to say thank you, James. That's kind of you, appreciate that. They said, you offer a great platform here. Fark the Haters, you rock. Appreciate that very much. They also said, also Erica has saintly patience. That's very sweet of them. They must mean again, you're patient with me. Appreciate that. Alan Bupri, thanks for your super chat. They said, and G-Man's not convinced. They said G-Man define quote dogma. Dogma? Yeah. The definition of dogma is people who watch modern day debate, who give super chats and smile all the time. That's the definition of dogma. Thank you very much. Really fast. I got a message back from DapperDinosaur on Twitter. He promises a serious chat. So if you do want to come, he's telling me he's going to mod it up. To me, I'll look at it and see what you want. Maybe drop in, see if you have a good time, whatever. World quarantine, G-Man. It's not like you have anywhere else to go. Come on. That's not necessarily true. I guess I got to unpack and I got things here I got to do. I got to show this room here alone. Busy man, people. I got a lot of work I got to do. Leave them alone, people, okay. Next up, thanks so much. John teasing you, G-Man. I love you, buddy. Said, let's see. Sister Ferris Rabia in the house still says, Erica, what is the survival benefit of reproducing sexually? Did asexual reproduction end? And what was the first organism to do so? What did that mate with? So the first order to become sexual rather than asexual. Sure. So as far as the first organism, again, you know, I got to say I'm not trying to talk on areas that aren't my field. I couldn't tell you. I don't know what the first sexually reproducing organism was. I would wager even if it's represented in the fossil record, which it very well might be because we have some great microfossils out there. It's probably not going to be the first one. Likely the first the emergence would have been prior. It's typically the fossil record gives us a good range, but not necessarily the precision of exactly when a species emerged because it always could have emerged earlier and then not fossilized. As for the benefit of sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction, it's all about genetic diversity. The more genetic diversity that you can sort of add into a population, the greater the chances are that there's going to be flexibility if a change in the environment comes, right? So if you have like three dogs and they'll have a different length of coat, you know, one is naked basically, one has medium length and one has long length. If all of a sudden there's a really bad winter, we are probably going to see, you know, the survival of the the hairiest, the warmest dogs offspring dominate the next generation.  Plants that reproduce asexually when they do so, I might be able to dig this paper up for you, but I might not, because again, botany is not necessarily my specialty, but when plants reproduce asexually because a partner isn't around, they tend to have a lower fitness over the, as a population, right? Over the next generation, then if they were capable of reproducing sexually because again, it's genetic diversity. There's more to pick and choose from. I hope that made sense. Gotcha, thanks so much. Appreciate it. And next up, super chat from Don Fullman. Appreciate it. They said, G-man, are you skeptical or cynical about evolution? Skeptical. Gotcha, thanks so much. Appreciate it. Mike Billers, thanks for your super chat. He said, G-man, do you seriously believe you came from dirt? I believe that I came from dirt and I believe that that's a lot more reasonable than believing that I evolved from a watermelon when I share a common ancestor with a watermelon. Thanks so much. John Goode, appreciate your super chat. I said, Erica, how many assumptions until it's ridiculous? I think that they're a critic of you. This is the same person who was coming down on you earlier, Erica. Yeah, sure. I mean, I don't know what assumptions are being made. Typically, I mean, if you're looking at it from a long time standpoint, right? Well, you've got radiometric dating, which is for law and physics to back that up. We don't see violations to that and even creations have admitted that. The rate team was sort of garnered by answers in Genesis, one of the biggest names in the game when it comes to creationism. And even they had to admit that exotic solutions have to be proposed for accelerated decay. If you're looking at evolution on sort of a species by species spectrum as far as assumptions go, well, we're dealing with a very, very, very large span of time. It might seem very difficult when, you know, I see creations prop up certain numbers of improbability for life to form in an abiogenetic sort of space, 10 to the 40th, something like that. But the thing is that you have to remember, right, is that, sorry, James, I'm almost done, is that you've got millions, if not billions of trials going on simultaneously. As large as the population is, evolution and selection are taking place, if that makes any sense. It's, you know, you're having a very large sample size over a long period of time. So certain changes are, dare I say, inevitable. Gotcha, appreciate that. And next up, appreciate your super chat from, let's see, Sentinel Apologetics who says, G-Man, please read Genesis 120. Why do birds come from the waters? And ask Erika to clarify how the Cambrian era evolves to avian evolution. And what we will do is, okay, so I think that that's supposed to be a hint to G-Man. So they say, G-Man, please read Genesis 120. Why do birds come from the water? This is my, this is gonna be my response for that. I'll do that when they prove to me they read the Bible. That's when I'll do it. Because my experience, and I'm not talking about you, Erika. All right, this is for the audience that's trolling me. My experience is people that are asking me these questions have me to pick a book up and read it. So just saying. Gotcha. Next up, appreciate your sweet- I'm not doing this work. I would say that was what you wanted me to do. You got it. Oh, I missed that. Yeah. Next up, appreciate your super jet from, Stupid Oral Energy who says, Rob, birds evolved from dinosaurs, not from water. So she's saying that to Sentinel Apologetics. Namely that birds evolved from dinosaurs, not from water. Then Sidra Fredo Sarabi, I think it's for your super chat who said, Erika, if evolution has so many predictions, what is the next animal outside bird, mammal, reptile, bird, or insect? I think they're saying like, what's the next new species going to come from? Mammals or birds or reptiles or insects, isn't every minute millions of years passed? Well, I feel like that's kind of a, there's a bunch of different ways you could take that question. I mean, if they're asking what the next group is going to be because we currently have, you know, reptiles and mammals birds and fish and insects, et cetera, and amphibians, I would say it's whatever it is, I don't know, but whatever it is, it's going to be a further categorization of an existing group, right?  So you don't necessarily see a group of things turning into another group of things or a kind becoming another kind. What you see is further specialization. That's when a nested hierarchy is. I have a lot of, I love speculative evolution. I think a lot of it is just for fun though. I'm not sure that you could make predictions, particularly because we don't necessarily know how the climate's going to change. Whatever evolutionists make predictions about the past, we do it knowing what change occurred, right? Like that's how we knew where tiktalic was because we knew what that ancient environment looked like and we knew what to expect if we were assuming that we have a sort of sarcophterygian fish turning into a tetrapod or rather having descendants that would then produce tetrapods, right? So that's how that prediction works. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to make predictions in the future because we don't have enough data to do that. Gotcha, thanks so much. Appreciate it. We got a super chat from Eric Vierthaler, 92, says, does he men believe in biblical fat earth? I can tell you from earlier, he does not. John Good, thanks for your super chat. Said, so fish, in all caps, took a walk on land and now we're here, L-O-L. Yes. Well, I'll say this in regards to Flat Earth, thank you, James, that while I don't believe in Flat Earth, I do believe one particular thing that they say. I don't believe that we ever, this is when I'm going to get some criticism from Eric and a lot of other people. I said this before, this is going to be your first time hearing me say this. I don't know if we've ever left earth and actually went to the moon. And I'm only saying that, not because of what a Flat Earther said to me, but because of what I've heard NASA actually say. How are you going to tell everybody you lost all of the information and you destroyed the information on how to get to the moon? That's very suspicious.  There's something that you can talk about in the future regarding that. That's where I stand with that. I am not a Flat Earther though. I believe they're ground. Gotcha, appreciate it. Next up, Super Chat from PadmeTheCat who says, time to ask the real question. And I'm sorry, James, I don't want to make things tense, but G-Man, why hasn't your roommate, G-Cat, paid me back my $5? Oh, you know, I don't know. G-Cat can't really talk and he can't really hear all that well, but G-Cat's all the way in the other room and I would get him and put him on camera and would just see him in everything, money, everything. But anyway, if you give me your Super Chat, your Super Chat information, I will send you a feline $5 as soon as possible and just make the cat pay me back later. I love that. Very nice. Ches Elliott, thanks for your Super Chat who says, Erica, the elucidator. That is very sweet. It is. I can sweet you. I appreciate that. I was, I'm glad I used such harsh lighting so no one can see me blush. Elucidator, what is that? What's an elucidator? She makes things clear. Yeah. Oh, okay. All right. I have a question for the audience and I would like for them to get back to me. I wanna know how many of them in Erica, this is one thing that's gonna be a little bit tense. How many of you actually believe Erica answered the question regarding Amazon's features? That's when we started getting a little, like I want them to start talking about that. I know that they're ignoring that and they didn't ever talk about that. No, I'm okay with it, G-Man. By all means, pull the audience. I would love to know if they think that I did that. Jen, don't talk. I would love to hear it too but I don't know how because I'm gonna hold you accountable later when I talk about who you are on YouTube, buddy. Okay? Thank you. Gotcha. Appreciate your Super Chat from P Barnes who says Erica equals patience and true class. Got a lot of fans out there, Erica. They're too kind to me, honestly. I just like to come on and have discussions and have a good time. Like I said to G-Man before, it's I'm a hard person to rile up. Very nice. Josiah Hansen, appreciate your Super Chat who says, woohoo, it's Erica also. No G-Cat, boo. Yo, I've never met G-Cat. G-Cat's in there sleeping like I'm gonna be doing so. Next up, John Rapp, thanks for your Super Chat. They said to John, good, pretty much yes. Get over it. Oh, okay. So that was in response to the one that asked about so fish came out of the land and then now we're here and then Eric Vierthaler, Thaler92, appreciate your Super Chat who said, we already asked that one. That's embarrassing. I didn't like you, Erica, because of how clear you were at articulating what evolution is. I think that's why they like you. But what I'm gonna do later on when I go on my channel is I'm gonna be asking them, okay, great, she's very articulate at explaining her position. Now let's talk about whether or not evolution is true. Hey