Hey everybody today we're debating evolution on trial and we are 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. We are debating evolution on trial and it's going to be a fun one. Very excited. Want to let you know if it's your first time here consider hitting that subscribe button as we've got a lot more debates coming up. In fact right after this one tonight we've got a double header Tom Jump and Nephilim Free. One of the old legends of YouTube debate in philosophy of religion creation evolution. They'll be debating on whether or not dinosaurs lived simultaneously with man. It's going to be terrific. It's going to be a really wild one and that's going to be right after this one. But also though this one folks I got to tell you we are really excited. There's a lot of lot of energy here. I can tell you if it gets wild tonight I can tell you I don't know if it's going to get as wild as it was right before we started they are ready to go. We are excited and so we're going to let everybody out of their cage shortly but we're going to do just to give everybody a basic position statement chance. We're going to give everybody about six minutes on average. It's really up to the teams on how they divide up their 12 minutes. And after we do that we'll go right into open dialogue. So we're going to start with Erica and Mark and so want to let you know folks I put all of the links of our speakers in the description box. So if you're listening and you're like I want more of that. Well you can hear plenty more where that came from by clicking on their links below. So with that very excited folks I'm going to hand it over to Erica who will get the ball rolling. Thanks so much all four of you for being here with us tonight. It's a pleasure to have you. Oh okay yeah I'm glad to be here. I do think it's probably going to get a little bit fiery but that's all right. Okay I'm going to share my screen I've got a little I'm probably the only one with the PowerPoint and maybe I'm not but you guys know me. I like my visual images. So here we go let's see hold on. All right can you guys all see that I gotta back it up. Okay all right well I'm gonna get started if that's all right with my six minutes my name is Erica the bachelor's of science and arts in animal science with minors in biology and in anthropology and I'm currently getting my master's of research in primatology and today we're discussing evolution on trial even though in my opinion this was in the opinion of the vast majority of scientists this was settled decades ago. So what do we mean when we say evolution? Well what we do mean is that evolution is a change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. What we don't mean is the big bang stellar evolution a biogenesis an exclusive trend towards bigger and stronger or books computers and car analogies. We also don't mean a flat earth discussion which we might also have tonight we'll see. So what does support evolution? Well despite being one of the most scrutinized theories of all time evolution finds support in every relevant field both with regard to science life science rather and the hard sciences. So we find it in paleontology biology anthropology genetics as well as geology physics chemistry and statistics. So I'm going to be highlighting some of the life science support today since we're sort of on a limited time budget. Genetics we've all been here before so let's take a moment and observe this terrifying cartoon family tree for babies. Using a full comparison of each member's genome we would be able to tell that Catherine and Amanda are more closely. Dave this is this is just lining up your your genome side by side and seeing if they match or are indeed more similar. So this is also done to determine paternity. This is legally binding and shows up to 99.99% that to people are or are not related and holds up in court. It's also done to determine dog breeds. You can send in your dog's DNA sample and get a decent estimate of what's kind of in them if they're sort of a mutt. As such we can say across the animal kingdom that more similar genomes equals more closely related. I really don't think anyone out there is going to be arguing this. Now I've discussed with some creationists in the past sort of the minutia of whether or what the best method of determining how closely related two individuals are and everything I have been able to find comes up with full genomic comparison. So let's keep that in mind because we have to consider that when genomes are aligned side by side we see a 96% similarity between humans and the members of genus Pan. So that's your chimps and your bonobos. And when we're looking at just you know coding base pairs that number rises up to 98.8 almost 99% similar. Interestingly enough when chimps and bonobos see their genomes compared to the other great apes such as gorillas and orangutans we see that they are more closely similar to us. So we are one another's closest living relative. Humans and chimps are more closely related than both mice and rats are to each other or house cats and tigers. Precious would consider the above pairs to be within their own created kinds but there is no means to classify mice and rats within a kind and then not place humans with the rest of the hominoids. What about paleontology? Let's zip through this.  Essentially the general trend here since we're gonna keep it pretty brief today is can we or can we not show a gradient of more basal characteristics in a common ancestor to more modern morphology in modern animals? And if we can do that this is a testable prediction that can be made and either confirmed or denied by evolutionary theory. So let's consider of course our hominoids. Yes, we can of course confirm that what we're seeing here is small morphologic change through geologic time. As I say every time it's very difficult to see B overnight becoming something like M but from B to C or C to D or D to E it's not rocket science. This is very small incremental changes that result in what is macroevolution. We can look at one of our favorite mosaics, Lucy, Australopithecus afarendus and indeed also Australopithecus africanus. We see nearly identical knees, a parabolic pallid and inline big toe, a pelvis that is much more similar to modern humans than to chimpanzees and of course a more ventral frame in magnum. What about our tetrapods? Well, guess what? Morphologic change over geologic time through the various strata, we see the modern tetrapod traits emerging going from eustenopteron all the way through a canthostega and to tulipoton. What about mammals? Same situation. Look at our synapses and our polycosorts through our theraxids and indeed to our synodonts. What do we see? Morphologic change through geologic time. You'll notice that those sprawling legs are going underneath the body. We're seeing heterodontia arise, et cetera, but we can see this in a modern analog as well because when we compare it says dragon here, but what that actually is is an agama. It's a type of lizard. When we compare an agama lizard to a fossil memo relative, this one is an axon and also a newborn kangaroo rat and an adult kangaroo rat, what we see is the mirrored movement of the inner ear bones. We're seeing what is essentially a recapitulation of the evolution of the auditory ossicles in the first place. This should not be the case if what we're dealing with is a sort of created kinds. Whales, same situation. Did you know that whales have the same knees as modern ungulates? Well, they do. There's a picture of it right there. They also have similar ankle bones when in sort of the individuals that we find them in. And there's a structure in the inner ear known as the involucrum, which is exclusively found in modern cetaceans today, so dolphins and whales, and can be found in a single lineage of terrestrial mammals that walked on all fours and then slowly through, of course, geologic time, we see them take to the seas. So all of this is still observation and it's still empirical. As I've said before, many observations in sort of astronomy, medicine and geology aren't direct observations with their eyeballs, but rather they're an interpretation of data or in the case of medicine symptoms and an appropriate sort of conclusion is reached from those data points. So what we need to do to begin to sow doubt for evolution what our interlocutors must do today is they must invalidate a full genomic comparison as the best means to determine relatedness. They're also going to have to provide an explanation rather for why fossils show morphologic change through geologic time and why these changes seem to match the divergence ranges given by genetics. That's an awfully big coincidence. And of course, if we can touch on it, I would love to see them put forth an invalidation for radiometric dating as a means to determine the very ancient age of the earth. I hope that was within six minutes. I really rushed through it. You could hear me stumbling over my words. I think I'll need a full six minutes there, James. The only thing that I'd like to add to what Erica had to say is we could take basically all of the, and we talked about this earlier today. Eric and I had a call around lunch today and we talked some of this stuff over with what we found out in genetics over the last 50 years. We could take pretty much all the skeletons that we have, all the fossils, everything we have and we could throw it all in the dump. We really don't even need it. Genetics show us everything that we could possibly ever have dreamed of having. You can see where retroviruses were injected into DNA. And I've had a chance of talking to these two guys here before we came on air tonight. And some of their opinions are just really out there. You're going to hear a lot of, this is the fact, just believe me because I say so. So what Eric and I are going to talk about tonight is what 99% of scientists pretty much agree on. There's always a fringe factor. You're always going to get scientists out there who are going to believe in gods and they're going to warp what they see in reality to try to fit a God in. You can see Hugh Ross do it. You can see a lot of people really doing some mental gymnastics that are really Olympic class gymnastics, to be honest with you. But yeah, in genetics alone, we have everything that we could ever need and we could just take everything. We could take all those skeletons that Eric had just showed us and we could throw them all in the garbage. We have everything. And like she said, this can put people in jail. We have cases now that are 50, 60, 70 years old that we're pulling DNA evidence out on and we're putting these people in jail. Now, yeah, a lot of them are very old people that have committed crimes at a young age but that's how accurate this stuff is. This isn't something that we just make up and it's a big conspiracy and genetics or something that we're told by the government and it's all some underhanded thing to make you believe that certain things are going on. No, we put people in jail over this for lifetimes. So there's no doubt that this stuff is real. And I think what you're gonna hear tonight is really not a debate on anything to do with reality. I think what you're gonna hear is a whole pile of we're being duped by the scientists and we're being told things and we're to believe this and we're idiots because we believe what all these scientists have to say. Well, I'll tell you right now, I've worked on a lot of stuff I'm 52 years old in my life and I never went to a special meeting where we all sat around and said, we're really gonna try to pull this over the eyes of the general public. We're really gonna try to make them think that vaccines are all a conspiracy and this is a conspiracy and that's what you're about to hear tonight. So enjoy, this is gonna be more of a circus than learning anything. I've already talked to these two guys and they're both flat earth creationists which you put those two together and really what's left for common sense. But take her away there guys, let's hear some of this rhetoric, I'd love to hear it. Very sassy and Austin and Nathan, the floor is all yours, thanks for being here as well. Oh, what's up, thanks man. Yeah, just like last minute but this is actually in my opinion not gonna be that difficult.  He appealed to authority, appealed to a majority and that means nothing. So it's very simple, in order to substantiate the postulation of evolution you're going to have to present some evidence of intermediate species. You cannot just claim some similarities and genetic sequences thus equate to a change in species, speciation that makes no sense. You're also gonna have to address biogenesis, right? Or present some form of postulation that would be counter to it. So really it's that simple, I don't need six minutes. Evolution is a positive claim that thus has the burden of proofs. You can't shift the burden of proof, that's a fallacy. So we'll just keep an eye on who's really lacking evidence and presenting fallacious arguments because you can ramble on about a bunch of scientists just think this, but that doesn't mean anything. Pseudo-science is an actual fact. So it's that simple for me, that's all I gotta say. Excellent, awesome, I'll take it away. Hey guys, my name's Nathan Thompson. I run the official Flat Earth and Globe Discussion on Facebook. It's 130,000 people. We're doing independent research. There's no cursing or insults allowed. So we take it very seriously. If people don't take it seriously, we kick them out. We've got about 10,000 people on our block list. So I mean, if people wanna come in and troll they can just be another drop in the bucket, but we are there to talk about real science, real observations, what are the facts?  So the only barrier from the truth is the preconceived notion that you already have it. So if you think or you think you're right or you think you know what the facts are and you're not open, well then that is the only barrier from the truth. Now evolution stems from the theory that the earth is a spinning globe. Nobody, I repeat nobody, on our stationary beautiful Flat Earth thinks that their great-great grandparents were a sponge. Okay, they don't believe that their great-great grandparents were some sort of shape-shifting monkey man that eventually proliferated into humans. Okay, so nobody would think that unless they were taught that in school there is no scientific evidence for this nonsense. As Austin said, you can't just claim they have similar genes so there was a change in speciation. You can't just claim that these two fossils have similar arms so there was a change in speciation. That is a joke. That is a device that they are using to deceive you. And when you're six and seven years old, you'll fall for it but when you're an adult and you're a critical thinker we shouldn't be falling for this kind of pocus, pocus, booga booga, pseudoscience, nonsense. Okay, the scientific method is an observation first then in hypothesis, then rigorous experimentation. So I saw Erika had up on her screen astrology and then it said observation and empirical as if looking at the stars is anything empirical you can't manipulate the cause of any effect in space because nobody is going to space to manipulate cause and effect experiments and testing. All you can do is observe and they have to presuppose that space is real that it's a real medium that those are distant objects light years away. Everything's a ball, they're all gases in a vacuum. The definition of a vacuum is an absence of gas.  And so yeah, he talked about oh how we never met and said we're gonna hide all this stuff for vaccines. Dude, you never worked on vaccines.   I mean, that is the biggest gaslight from what we heard to talk about period. You said, we put people in jail, it's real. As if throwing someone in a cage is scientific evidence of something. Like what kind of joke is that? Then you said all the skeletons and fossils we could throw those in the dump, all right great. So we will, said genetics show everything. You're right, they do. They show that information doesn't come from nowhere, okay? And also entropy. Things are not mutating and getting more magnificent and more creative and more developing new arms or new wings or multiple limbs or gills so they can breathe underwater. That ain't happening, okay? Certain genetic code produces certain animals and that's all we see. So that's all the time I need. Thank you James for the time. Let's get into the back and forth. Thank you very much. We will now jump into the open dialogue as Nathan has mentioned and wanna mention, I'm so sorry, even the description for this debate, strangely I was looking for Mark's link from past debates. All of our descriptions from past debates are currently gone, I don't know. Let me know if anybody else is experiencing that because I do try to make it a priority to put everybody's link in the description and including tonight's description is blank. So I'll figure that out but in the meantime, so give me feedback if you got it in the live chat. Thanks so much and the floor is all yours everybody. Thanks again for being here and I will work on getting your guys' links in the description. Thanks for being here, the floor is all yours. Well, chances are you won't James, it's a conspiracy. It's the majority of people, it's conspiracy and all those links are gone and everything's a conspiracy and what you need is you need a few millennials to sit there and tell you that everything that we've done and worked on over the last 100 years, yeah, you got Kent's SpongeBob there, yeah. Like we're dealing with some people here that are very special, let's just say that. They don't believe in anything, all the vaccines, everything is a conspiracy, the earth is obviously flat. Like that just makes a lot of sense, everything tells us that the earth is flat and they're gonna sit there in their stundness, especially this Nathan guy, he's incredibly stunned.  But in public, let's put this out there.  So I'm gonna tell you that exactly the height that they say it is, we will work it out, I will do it all on video and we will see how many arc minutes it travels and if it travels the right amount, I win, if it doesn't, he wins. So you're dealing with a clown here, he started off the night with, you don't know who I am, I'm the head of the Flat Earth Society, total clown here. So let's hear this clown talk, I think everyone will just pretty much figure out what he is and if evolution, if evolution is not real, then what is it? Is it a God, what's this guy's point? Like, what's this clown have to say here? Is it a God, what are we talking about? So let me get it on this real fast Mark, because I, you know, I don't say this a lot, but honestly, I really feel like my entire opening statement was completely ignored or just not absurd at all. Yeah, it was. But Mark would say that all the fossils and all that stuff we could throw in the dump. Yeah, and that's fine, we could focus on the genetics. Right, and that's fine, I'm with you. But the thing is is that Austin prior, and I know you guys didn't have a discussion beforehand and decide on what you were going to go over, but he asked for transitional forms. Now I know he was present for my opening statement, at least for part of it. So I find it very, very difficult to sort of reconcile that fact with the fact that he saw an opening statement, he saw probably two dozen pictures showing morphologic change over geologic time, which is what evolution predicts, then turns around and says, show me the transitional fossils. I did. That's not what I said, that's not what I said. I said intermediate species. Those are the. No, no, no, no, no. Do we have any intermediate species that are alive that we can observe please? Yes. How about dog, how about dog and wolf? How about that? Are you happy with that one or no? Yes, that's the intermediate species. How about wolf to dog? Are you happy with that one? That's the same species. Oh, it is. Okay, I see. So we could take dogs and we could breed them back to wolves. Is that what you're telling us? No, I'm saying can you show me where a monkey has turned to a neanderthal and then a human and where's the intermediate? You just said living species, you just said living. Yeah, yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying, why is there not intermediate species?  Living?  Hold on, Mark, I need, I really need a second for this. Are you asking if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Is that, is that what I'm telling you? No, what I'm asking is where's the intermediate species? You're asking for transitional forms. That's, that's what I show. Okay, look, let me say this. If we kill them from apes and then there's neanderthals, now there are apes. But we don't come from apes, we are apes. We don't come from apes, we are apes. Is that why you keep interrupting him is because you're being, Yeah, wait, wait to see your, Yes, I'm an ape, yes, that's right. We, we are apes. Cool story, dude. Monkey man, can you stop interrupting the debaters? Is that okay? Can you stop interrupting the debaters? You don't want to be like, I know you guys are going to go on your rambles about your little PowerPoint. Okay, there were apes and then there were neanderthals and then there were humans, right? No, no, no, no, not at all. That's, that's completely incorrect though, Austin. Completely wrong, as stunned as stun can be. I mean, that's the thing. Like I'm, so again, to reiterate from my opening statement, I'm getting my master's degree in primatology. So that's primates, right? Primeracy. Primates. Conspiracy.  And, and, you know, I really want to take this opportunity to, to, to elucidate this for you. We share a common ancestor with chimpanzees from about seven, dated from approximately 13 to seven million years ago. This organism was called say, Hellanthropus Chedensis. Then you have a bunch more intermediate species, exactly what you're asking for, with traits that aren't quite completely basal, that is to say more similar to chimpanzees, but not quite derived, that is to say similar to humans. You have about 17 of those Austin, 17 hominids that transverse through geologic time with slow incremental changes that are a ratio of ape traits. When I say ape, I'm using this colloquially from, as in our common ancestry with chimpanzees and human traits. Are you with me so far? Yeah. Where did this genetic code come from? Okay, that's completely not what we're chatting about. I would love to- Wow.  No, I'll just- Where does the point in- I'm saying that monkeys, Emily, where does the point in come from? Humans over time. Yes. I'm just wondering, because, I mean, we can take all the fossils, Mark said that, throw it in the trash. How did the genetic code, write the code, insert new data on its own out of nothing to create new units. What's different between, what is different between you and a chimpanzee? Or you and a raccoon. What's different about you and a raccoon? I don't drink my own piss. I didn't, I missed that. Say that again. I don't throw my own poo. I don't drink my own piss. I can reason between right and wrong. What does any of that have to do with genetics? Those are all behaviors. Can I step in, Erica? Well, I'm not a dentist. Because man rapes, man rapes, man kills, man does incredibly shitty things to man. Animals do that too. What is this clown talking about? Animals do that too. That he doesn't throw his own poo. What are you talking about? Animals do all that stuff too. What are you talking about? He's saying that- What are you talking about?   Is that really your argument?  Really? Okay, wait up, wait up. I want to get back to this point. I do too, Austin. So you claim that there's this gradual evolution over millions of years and that we're changing forms, changing species. Okay, so if we go from ape to human over millions of years, where are the ones that are in the middle? Because you claim it is a constant, gradual process. Yeah, we have apes, we have humans, we have none of the intermediate species. Can you please respond with specificity? Yes, so Austin, do you think that evolution doesn't act also on chimpanzees? If we share a common ancestor, which we do, both of us have been changing through time in accordance to our environmental pressures. Now, if you really want to get into the nitty-gritty, I can do so quite quickly. I'm gonna do it quickly. I just want you to answer my question specifically. What question? You're asking for something? He wants to know when an ape turned into an ape. You gotta answer that.  Cool straw man, I thought you were the smart one. When did an ape become an ape, Erica? So when did an ape, an earlier hominoid, when did an earlier hominoid become a hominoid? And by the way, we have three to 4% genetics that we share with Neanderthal, man. So yeah, we've got that issue to talk about too. So Austin, again, what you're asking for is precisely what I showed you pictures of. You're asking why do none of these organisms exist today? Is that what I'm picking up? Correct. Okay, excellent. So you really truly are asking if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys as in why? No, no, we have to go over this again. Hey, Nathan. You just said no already and you asked the same question. You're repeating yourself, Erica. Nathan, what I need from you is for you to turn your mic down. What I need from you is you to stop repeating yourself over and over. It would be a lot. You've already answered. It would be a lot easier if either of my Neurolocutors were either.  My question was not why are there still monkeys? I very clearly specified what I'm asking. Where is the intermediate species since it's a constant process over millions of years, there would still be an intermediate species because it's constantly happening. Where are they? Austin, you're asking for an entire lineage to be represented constantly. If that were the case, then everything that ever evolved would be present in the biosphere at the same time. The reason why all of the intermediate forms are here but they're dead and in the ground is because they were out-competed by their own descendants. That's what evolution is. Do you guys understand the basic understanding? So the evolved monkeys couldn't survive but the ones that didn't evolve, they made it, right? They made it because they didn't evolve, right? The stupidest thing that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard and it came from exactly the moron I thought it would come from. Someone who thinks the earth is flat. So what he's trying to say right now is that we are the unevolved ones. Is that what you're saying? No. All you do is just misrepresent what people say.  She showed you.  He just said she doesn't have any, they all died. There's monkeys. She just said she didn't have any intermediaries if they all died. Why don't I throw my poo? This guy's over here saying, what's wrong with her? We were going to switch back to the original question. She didn't have any. I've got to hold on a second. I don't want to mute you. Hold on, I don't want to mute you. What we were going to do is we were going to jump into I think the last thing that Erika had said, I think that Erika's been calm. So I'm going to kick it back to Erika and then we'll go from there. So whatever your last point was, Erika, or question. Oh yeah, sure, James. Yeah, I mean the thing is, like I said, I'm not about to get riled up by any of this kind of behavior. I don't particularly find it anything, but slightly inconvenient and irritating because it's hard to hear whatever one's saying. And I'm sure you feel the same way as the moderator.  But yes. Yeah, and everybody's telling you to turn Nathan down too. His gap is really too loud if you look in here. He just keeps screaming into the thing, stupidity.  Yeah, so. Thanks for your feedback in the live chat, letting me know that my audio was my mic unplugged. But we're going to go back to Erika now. Yeah, so to clarify, evolution, by its very nature, organisms that are more fit for their environment are going to be selected for. When they have been sufficiently selected for so that they're either reproductively or genetically isolated, that's called speciation. And that's when an organism that has descendants that are more fit than it is sort of usurped by that organism. So anytime you have, I'm sure these guys have taken biology and understand what a niche is, which is basically a position in an ecosystem that is quite specific. Two organisms can't occupy the same niche. So if you have a chimpanzee and a human, which of course occupy very different niches, one lives in a rainforest and the other formerly lived on the savanna, everything in between occupied the same niche or attempted to occupy the same niche as humans. Because according to human evolution and general anthropology, it's heavily suggested that a change in environment is what spurred all those changes. That's what evolution and selection is. So to even suggest that all of the intermediate organisms or by their official term transitional species would exist at the same time, it would completely disprove evolution. What you're asking for, Austin, is for me to provide evidence that would disprove my own position. And that's what I'm gonna say. No, okay, that's a, yeah, kind of straw mended, but it's really pretty simple. It's gonna sound like I'm being re-iterative because you aren't actually being specific to the question, right? But it's very simple. If it's a constant process over millions and millions of years, conveniently to make your population un-fossifiable, right? It's purely theoretical, conceptual abstractions that you make un-fossifiable, but nevertheless, and you act like it's science, I'm asking you very specifically, if it's a constant process over billions of years or millions of years, and it's always happening, which means it's happening right now, we're still evolving, age are still evolving right now, right? That's what you said. Where are the ones that are in the middle? Mark, you gotta help me out here. He's asking for transitional species, isn't he? Everybody on the chat here saying, I gotta help you out. What do I even say to that? I don't know what he's talking about. Is he asking where the, like, where did the dinosaurs go? Do these people not realize that 99.8% of the things that have been living on this earth are no longer here? How do you miss this much? How do you miss this many days of school to not realize, hold on, hold on, we're getting more yapping here. I'm heard that I'm talking over everybody, but apparently he's talking over. So go ahead, yap away. Promise we'll come right back to Austin, but let's let Mark finish this point and we'll come right back to Austin. Yeah, so at any rate, I have no clue what they're talking about, Erika. I really have no clue for you. I don't know how to help you on this one. You show, we can show the species that have gone extinct. We can show how we've gotten to this point. We can show the genetics. We can show the retroviruses that have been inserted over the last four, five, six million years. I don't know what more, what more can we do? Like at what point do you just throw your hands up in the air? I don't even know what to say for this. And they're just gonna keep asking it over and over the same silly question that I don't know how we're supposed to. But you nailed it. It really comes down to if we came from monkeys, why are there, why are there still monkeys? That's what I thought I was saying. Yeah, that's what I'm hearing too.  Why are y'all talking to each other and misrepresenting my argument? What are you doing? Austin, that's, that's what I'm asking. White flag, where's a white flag? They're waving a white flag right now, Austin. Go ahead and tell us again what it is exactly you would like us to show you. And I wanna clarify, I am not attempting to strawman you. I genuinely, this has never happened to me where I straight up have no idea if what I said wasn't an answer to your question, I don't know what your question is and I'm really sorry. Just concede you don't have an answer. No, cause I don't know what the question is. It's like third grade level. It feels like you're asking me a question in another language and then asking me to answer the question. No, it's a variation. Real quick, Austin. So you're saying that there's 17 different kind of monkey men, where monkeys turned into humans, right? But unfortunately, they're all dead and you're only proved as fossils. And Mark said, we can take all the fossils and throw those in the trash. So what we're wondering is what we can see today with our eyes and observe real science, right? Not theoretical, not pushing it back millions of years. Where are the intermediary species or are they all dead and your only proof is, look, we have bones and they kind of match. So are you asking if evolution is still going on and are there any intermediates today? No. Do you want me to repeat? Like every... No, I mean, I pulled up over how you believe evolution's still going on today. I've pulled up the chat though, Nathan, and I'm genuinely hoping that someone in the chat actually understands what either of you is saying because no one seems to, even the creationists that I talked to don't seem to know what you're saying. Are you listening anymore? Are we not speaking English? No. No, you're not. I genuinely... No, you're actually not. That's the funny thing, you're not. All right guys, so you heard it. The debaters that I've been debating all night tonight just said, I'm not speaking English. Yeah, I have no idea what you would like to know. You would like to know. So if dogs came from wolves, where's the intermediate species between wolf to dog? Is that what you're asking for? No, I ask you very simply. Would that work though? Would that work for you? Because we came from an earlier ape that we have continually evolved from an ape. So do you understand that you can take an ape? Then that ape can wander off as a group, not an individual, as a group. It can wander off like Erica tried to explain to you. And it can move its way off, let's say into the jungle and then evolve in a way that makes it the best for his life. He lives in the jungle. And guess what? He becomes successful. The people that wandered off from the group off into the savannah, guess what? They all got pegged off by lions. They never became successful. But they did that for 200 or 300 years and then they became extinct. Just like Deneanderthal, they wandered off.  It just didn't have the same complexity.  This is funny. But they say that they wandered off, they had a bigger brain, but they weren't quite as good at thinking things out as we were. And guess what? They ended up going extinct, but we bred with them. We have their bones. We have their genetic code. And we have our genetic code. And we have three to 4% of their genetic code in our genetics. Which part of this do you not understand? Do we have their genetic code or our genetic code? Because what you're all effectively doing right now is telling us fairy tales. So can you answer the question with specificity, like an adult instead of ad-homs? So I'm asking a very specific question. What's the ad-hom? I'm telling you how it happened. Okay, check this, Bre. If it's a constant process over millions of years, there would be some observable intermediate species because you claim the evolution is still happening. I don't need to hear your fairy tales about they went over here to a jungle. It means nothing. Okay, you wanna hear about a fairy tale? Listen to me for two seconds. So birds went up to the Arctic. They went to the Antarctic. They became penguins. How did that happen? Explain that to me. So birds became penguins? Do you have any evidence of that? No, a bird is a penguin. What are you talking about? A bird is a penguin. A penguin is a bird. And it can no longer fly. You know why it can't fly? Because for it to live where it lives, it had to gain a fat layer that would allow it to be able to live in minus 40, 50, 60 degree Celsius weather. So how do you not see that we have hummingbirds at the equator that weigh less than an ounce? And yet we have these huge birds at the poles that are covered in fat. They've evolved to live there. So are you saying if there are penguins, where are the rest of the birds? Is that what you're asking us? Because we're at a loss here. If your guys argument is that all this evolution happens over millions and millions of years, but then you tell us a story, how birds traveled to the Arctic and didn't die, didn't freeze to death, and somehow over millions of years, miraculously develop dozens of pounds of fat. Who said millions of years? Oh, hundreds, thousands. The thing is, as soon as they showed up without all that fat, they would die. Okay, let me ask a question. I think this is my attempt to try to figure out. If you're asking something that can be answered one and two, that is something that evolution claims. So let me ask Austin and Nathan, if let's live in opposite world for a second, and you guys both accept evolution, what would your intermediate species look like? I don't know, I don't adhere to your fairytale religion. No, but that's my point. If you can't even imagine what an intermediate species is, when it's not a transitional, it's clearly something else. The only thing I can think of is that you're asking why, say, Australopithecus afarensis isn't alive today.  No, the point is, yeah, it transits. Austin, that's its name. That's just the name of the animal. You are claiming the transition. You are claiming this religion. You are claiming the fairytale. I don't have to go into detail about your fairytale postulation. I'm asking you, where is the proof of it? Okay, it's very simple. You can't just say, oh, well, conveniently, they're all gone. All the evidence is gone, but I promise it's right. All right, but do you- Erica. I'm gonna give you soda. Erica, what it comes down to. Erica says they're all dead. Hold on. It's not Erica.  Short and thick. Go ahead, Erica. So Erica, what they're asking for is they would like you to deliver to them the absolute volumes and volumes. It would take up tractor trailer loads to get them all of our evidence. They would like you just to show it to them right now. Just show me. Millions and millions of hours of millions of scientists that have worked on this. Just show me. Where's this intermediates? You're appealing to authority again. No, it's not authority. It's not authority. It's like anything. Listen up, clown, okay? Here's how it works. When a bunch of engineers get together and they tell you what it takes to make an airplane fly, we go with those people.  We rely on educated people to get us places safely. Or is that a conspiracy too?  We get to see planes fly, bro. Yeah, I've been in a plane. I fly about once a month. Really? Did you get to the edge of the Flat Earth or how did that work out for you? Wow, so you're going to presuppose an edge that nobody's ever seen and then ask us if we... Oh, so the Flat Earth has no edge. There's one for you. The Flat Earth has no edge. Mark, and then when we flew over the edge, the pilot actually got on the loudspeaker and said, ladies and gentlemen, if you look to the right of the cabin, we are flying over the edge. Go ahead, Erica. Like my wife said, these guys are just clowns. Go ahead. And you're asking me if our commercial jet flew around the edge of the Earth.  Honestly, I've never... Yes, I am.  We're going to re-think, you know, everything. We're going to kick it over to Erica again. Yeah, get it back to Erica.  That's how you look good. We're going to give it to Erica. Yeah, closing statements.  What the heck? Another insight, Erica looked bad. Okay, we've got to hand it over to Erica. All right, here we go. Yeah, I'm not a big fan of talking over people. I've never had this experience before. Neither have I.  Why do you keep interrupting your partner? But anyways, yeah, I honestly... I don't even know where to begin with this because my problem here is that at least with individuals like, I don't know, other creationists that Mark and I have both talked to. Like, we've both talked to standing for truth. Standing for truth has an understanding of, you know, what biology is, what is selection, what is natural selection, what's sexual selection, what are basic terms in biology. And I feel like when you ask questions like, why didn't every organism in a lineage survive or alternatively tell me which organisms are intermediate species today because they're going to evolve into something else, essentially saying which ones are or are not going to go extinct. It's very difficult to explain when you're interlocutors don't...  I just genuinely am not certain that there are definitions that we can agree on. Like, I don't know if I asked, you know, what is natural selection? I don't know what answers I would get. Whereas in the past, like, I don't know what genome. Like, I knew genome knows what natural selection is. And we disagree on just about everything. So, you know, honestly, James, I just don't... I don't really know where to go from here. Normally, these conversations... You're just stating one. Like, let's just let her finish. I promise we can come right back to you guys for a quick rebuttal, but... That's all I had to say. I mean, the fact that we're still on the first question is mind-blowing to me. She wants to go away from the question. This is the third time she's effectively done the same thing. She's recapped it inaccurately because she doesn't have an answer and she can't be honest and can see she doesn't have an answer. You say the evolution's still happening. That means apes are still evolving. Where are the ones that are still evolving, Erica? That is the question you're asking. Yeah, they're all here. Every animal is evolving still. And all the ones in between. Austin, and all you did was say, show me some intermediate species. And you see how she twists your words and says, why didn't every intermediate species survive? No, we're not over here saying every intermediate species should have survived. Can you please? And maybe we can get to a second question. If you would listen to what we were saying and stop straw manning arguments with our words. Move on, Moron. Move on. Go monkeys. No, no, it's okay, Mark. Honestly, I don't find it. I'll answer them right now. You want to know intermediate species that are still alive, but nobles are still alive. Japanese macaques are still alive. How many monkeys would you like me to explain to you that are still alive, that have grown up with us alongside us? How many more would you like? Because I believe there's species wise, there's about 600 species of monkeys and apes in the world. So how many would you like? Or do they not work? Are they the wrong ones? Are they not the intermediates that you're looking for? I think they're all the wrong ones, Mark. I don't think there is anything wrong for these guys. I really do. I don't think there's a right answer. They're just going to keep pretending that they're asking a different question. I think what we should do is we will go to Q and A shortly because we have that double header tonight. So we do have to be exactly on time. Otherwise, Nephilim free and Tom Jump will destroy me. So I do want to maybe take a little bit more time if you guys have any closing thoughts drawing together the threads for your side and then we can go into the Q and A. So thanks so much. It's been a wild one. Cool, I got one more question for you. Okay, so do you have a counter to biogenesis being that living, something living organism can only come from something else that's living? Do you have a counter to that? Well, that's another reason why I feel like you just didn't watch my opener because I covered in that that this is a conversation about, and this is why, and again, I'm not trying to be mean, but this is why I don't think that this conversation was ever going to be fruitful because we're not dealing with the same definitions. If you think that biogenesis or abiogenesis have anything to do with evolution, then that's the problem you have to start with right there. I say the monkey came from a rock. Hold on, Nathan, we do have to give them a chance to respond. You guys say a dog. Nathan, we do have to give them a chance to respond. Oh, Nathan. See, here's the thing. We're going to go up on the surface. This is a way to scale religion, okay? Nathan, I hate to do this, but I do have you on mute. So go ahead, Erica, and then I promise I'll unmute you in a second, Nathan. Here's the thing, though, Nathan. Even Kent Hoven accepts that abiogenesis is something different than evolution. When I had that thought- Oh, well, Kent accepts it, all right. That's good. Let's close the box. Oh, my gosh. Okay. Should not have taken you on mute. Okay. No, it's- I've got you back on mute, Nathan, for just a moment until this thought can be finished. Can I take the dot from you for a second, Erica? Yeah. Nobody said that the earth came rolling out of a dot or the universe or any of the matter as it stands. I've said this in a previous debate. It was about 300 million years before energy started to coalesce into matter. So nobody has ever, ever.   All right, let's just let Mark finish this point. We'll go to Q&A. Okay, hold on.  Is that what you're telling me? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. We're gonna have a debate about that. Einstein was the most- You just blindly told everything he says. Yeah, we know, Mark. There you go. Absolutely. There you go, people. Okay. Erica and I will wrap it up on that.  The theory of reality.  The theory of relativity. Yeah, we're gonna give you a real time. Let's see here. We will respond, though. The theory of relativity. I think, hold on. I think both Nathan and Austin, but just give me one second. We can give you a chance to respond. I think that you guys were both speaking at the same time. I appreciate your passion. So either Austin or Nathan. Okay, yeah. He just acted like he just appealed to Einstein's theory. The theory of relativity is a re-effication policy that attributed a property to a privation. Space is a privation. You cannot attribute physical property to privations. Space and time are both conceptual abstraction. They cannot have physical properties. It's a re-effication policy. Einstein reified space. Right, right. Yeah, they're making the question by assuming the speed of light. That's never been measured or tested. Sorry. The speed of light has never been measured or tested. Did you really say that? You heard me. You just repeated it. The speed of light. Let me repeat it again for everybody. Has never been measured. So the thing that we continually measure down to, I think we're up to 40 decimal points now and we've measured it six different ways. We've never measured it. Well, where's your vacuum that's as strong as space? 10 to the negative 17 tour where you can test the speed of light in a vacuum that you're claiming it travels in. How messed up are you? It's called space, dude. Yeah, that's it. It's called space. Now we have a shitload of it around our atmosphere. It's called space. Hey, I think that may be a good time to go into the Q and A. I hate to do this. Yeah, please go into Q and A. Let people ask these clowns some questions because this is real. Do appreciate everybody being here. It's been a wild one, folks. Do want to say first, thanks so much to our speakers who I have linked. So those links are in the description. I don't know what that blip was before, where for some reason it wasn't showing, but we were all set there.  Well, you can hear plenty more where that came from. Also, want to say, I forgot to mention basically, if you have a question, fire it into the old live chat and we'll try to get through as many as we can. We do have another debate coming up right after this and that's going to be with Nephilim Free and Tom Jump on whether or not dinosaurs lived with man. Tom seems to disagree strongly with Nephilim Free. We'll see if Neph can convince him. Next up, appreciate your super chat, though. First up, from Michael Dresden. Thanks for your super chat. Usually a troll, don't know if you're, but he says hit like. So thanks for that at least, Michael. Appreciate that support. Also, next up, thanks for your super chat. Let's see, a poser of religion. I'm going backwards here. This is, I always kind of prioritize. They said, can we see Mark destroy Nathan's Flat Earth myth? Yeah, we'll do it next time. Like I said, I'll put money down on this one. We'll see if he has any money to put down. He doesn't look like anyone who has a job, but if he can even pull together 10 bucks, we'll see if we can get it back going on this. And I'll show you exactly how we know that the earth is round and how we know the exact speed and height of the satellites going over the top. Exactly. Down to, we will get it down to art seconds if you want. It'll travel exactly the speed it's supposed to. But we'll see if he can pull together 10 or 20 bucks. We'll see. Can I respond maybe? We have to keep moving. Next up, thanks so much. Oh wait, Nathan, sorry, I didn't give you a chance. Did you say you'll accept? No, I want to respond. Yeah, I tried to set up the debate tomorrow. You said you couldn't do it. I tried to set it up for Sunday. I'd love to do that.  Yeah, some people are self employed. Some people own a business. Some people are investors, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. They don't have jobs. Are they losers too, Mark? Well, they have jobs. They have jobs. Is that what you are an investor? You're just an investor follower. Nathan owns Apple. Pull together a thousand bucks and we'll have a bet. How's that? I'm willing to host. I usually, like Sunday, I'm just usually pretty tired out. But if you guys would like, I'd be willing to host Mark and Nathan on Sunday on a flat Earth debate if that would be, if you guys would really like to. Gotcha. Okay, well, we'll see. We can email and figure out if that can work. So I can't guarantee it Sunday folks, but we'll see maybe eventually here on this channel. So thanks so much for your super chat from. Appreciate it. Brian Stevens, thanks. They said Mark in all caps. Next week's meeting is at 2 p.m. Same place. No idea. Me neither. Brought it forward a man. Thanks for your super chat. Says Lord Frog laughs at creationism. Must be a critic of you guys. Kang 024. Thanks for your super chat. They say question for the creationists, in parentheses, these two idiots. Please explain pesticide resistant insects. So you got a critic there gentlemen. They said, please explain pesticide resistant insects. Well, I don't need to explain insects and other necessary antecedent to creation as a creator. Gotcha. Thanks so much for your, let's see. Super chat from Craig Montgomery.  Watch as they try to claim biblical creation with no evidence is the default position. Must be a critic of you guys. Didn't happen one time. Didn't happen once. Sorry, Globed. Sijafredo, Serabia. Thanks for your super chat. They might be a flatterer. You never know. They say- I have a problem with Globed, James. Don't give him that. They say Erika is astelopithecus the same as hominids. How did they mate and not create a hybrid as you previously explained is impossible in what's explanation for knuckle and what is the explanation for knuckles or knees going against morphology? So kind of two questions there if you want to take one. Yeah, sure. That's a very, very answerable question. I very much appreciate that. I was kind of shocked. Yeah, so the difference between, first of all, let's clarify. Aferensis is a hominid. So all of the astelopithecus pretty much, I mean, technically depending on the definition that you use, living apes are also hominids. As for hybridization, I think they're referring to the last time when I spoke where I mentioned that divergence time and speciation time are indeed different, which means that we probably had some interbreeding for about maybe three, four million years between sort of the branch off of our lineage and that of genus Pan. Now, I guess what they're asking is why we have like, it's a little hard to kind of suss it out, why we have like locking knuckles and aferensis I suppose. The pressure to get rid of locking knuckles would come far after the movement to bipodality, which is indeed what we see in aferensis had a pretty long video about why we know aferensis was bipedal. If you wanna check it out on my channel. But the hybridization thing, I hope I previously answered that to the extent that they wanted, which is that statistically speaking, it's highly unlikely that our fossil specimens are going to come from hybrids, particularly because hybrids, the further away you get from that speciation and divergence time, the less viable they're likely to be. I hope that was appropriate. Thanks so much. Appreciate your super chat. John Lloyd, who said evolutionist using ad-hams. Wow, how intellectual. They got a critic of you, Mark or Erica. That would be for me. Erica's been very cordial tonight. She really has. I gotta apologize to her too. Like this is just, this blew me away right from the very beginning. We shouldn't have had that long opener where I had that chance to talk to Nathan. It's just, you know, anyways, move on. Gotcha. Next up. Thanks for your super chat. Kango24, who said question for the clowns or these creationists, please explain the vestigial structures found in aquatic mammals. No.  Yeah, because whales have veins. Conspiracy, it's a conspiracy. Gotcha. My guess, just to give context, my guess is they're maybe talking about the alleged kind of hip bones in the whale. They're saying these are usually considered vestigial structures by scientists. That's my guess, unless Erica, if you know if there's maybe something that they might be referring to.  It's all there. It's just, it's become very minimal. Just like if you look at an emu, it has what looks like little arms just hanging down. They're not even, they don't even have muscles attached to them anymore. Very vestigial. Interestingly enough, for those of you out there who do find this kind of stuff compelling, oops, sorry. If you go and look up some embryological pictures, embryology, sorry, pictures of cetaceans, you'll actually see that for an early set about the first couple of weeks, they actually have hind limb buds that grow out due to the original instructions that they had that were in their DNA to kind of form them. And then they disappear, which is quite interesting. You can see them in stunning HD. You can give me a chance. Yeah, and check in. And also James. Just so we don't have too much teeming on. Check in. We want to give these guys a chance. Two at the beginning. We want to give these guys a chance to respond. Yeah, go ahead. And then we'll go to the next one. If you guys want to respond, you can. If you don't want to, you don't have to. Oh yeah, I mean, it's very simple, man. It has to be substantiated, postulation of intermediate species. It can't just claim some unfossifiable fairy tale. It's really that simple. So it doesn't matter. Next up, Sunday worship. Thanks for your super chat. Who said Nathan Thompson uses Internet Explorer. Is that your chosen browser, Nathan? Gotcha. Next up, K-024. He's even bearish him. That's the first time I've seen Nathan embarrassed. They said, question for the special. Oh, they said special children. Please explain. I think they, I don't know who they're referring to. They say, please explain why there are genetic similarities between chimpanzees and humans. That's the way that it was made. James, if they're insulting us, they're space monkey glow pets. If they're insulting who they're asking the question to, definitely space monkey glow pets. You don't have to wonder who they're asking the question to. It's coming to us. John Lloyd, thanks for your super chat. Who said, Mark, please try and be kind. No pressure, love you.  That's the first time that I've done it. I've actually been known as being fairly, fairly calm headed, but man, you know, you just, you hear this ignorance and you just, it's beyond belief. You know, they're anti-vaxxers. I'm talking, I'm talking. So keep her down there, clown. So, you know, they're anti-vaxxers. They're anti-globe. They're anti-evolution. They're anti-everything. Look at this clown. I don't believe anything I believe. This is the kind of, this is the kind of, dealing with here.  We appreciate your questions and thanks so much for your super chat from, Aaron Armstrong seemed to agree. They said, turn the bald guy down. Mark, you do have that action hero look. I don't, I've said this before. In the thumbnail, if Mark doesn't look like an action hero with the stone cold, you know, shaved head and also the goatee, I don't know who does. Movie theory, thanks for your super chat. Who said, team creation already won. Debate done. Quite confident coming from that side. If you want, you can respond to, you don't have to. Okay, Kings are, you guys don't look that concerned. They said, question for the creationist from King024. Why would a creator make this organism? The laulau, a type of nematode. Why would a creator make what he made? I don't know. Gotcha. I'm not the creator. Well, in particular, they're asking about the laulau, which is a type of nematode. Same answer. Nematode, yeah. Gotcha. Michael Dresden, thanks for your super chat. Said Nathan and Austin already won. This is over. You've got a fan there. Tell us, fan overlander, thanks for your super chat. Who said Nathan makes G-Man look and sound intelligent? Mark likes that. Okay, Nathan, you can respond if you don't want it. You don't have to if you don't want to. They're just insulting G-Man there, so, and me, and so, they're globehead. You love your G-Man. If you're watching G- You know what, originally this debate, G-Man was going to be a part of this debate originally. It was going to be wild. But John Lloyd thinks you're super chatty. He said, smile, Erica. You'll make a great teacher or professor.  I hope to get there at some point. I would love to do some teaching along with research, so. But we'll see. I've got to get on that. Quiet, you. All right, go ahead. You said teaching and research? Yeah, I hope to get my master's.  Okay, Nathan, I told you. So- Okay, honestly, James, I don't get rattled by that kind of stuff. I'm not, you know, it's whatever. I mean, I would prefer to have conversations with people who like want to have a conversation, but- Yeah. Hey, Erica, can I ask you a sincere question? I know you've probably devoted a lot of time to this, right? And I can understand why it would be hard to ever consider the fact that maybe it isn't real, but have you ever actually considered the fact that maybe evolution isn't real? Well, it's interesting that you asked that because I used to be a young earth creationist. When I was a young, when I was a youth, I was a young earth creationist, and it was actually exposure to a greater volume of science and literature that changed my mind. And also seeing it for myself, you know, I got to go to, I got the utmost pleasure to go to Olduvai Gorge and see, you know, the places where these fossils were pulled up and I've gotten the pleasure of being in a lab and seeing some of this genetic work, running assays and things like that. So, yeah, I would say, I mean, I'm always open to, honestly, Austin, I really try to be open to all kinds of evidence. I just, I feel confident in my position because I've spent so much time seeing it for myself and performing the experience that are required, usually a part of curriculum. Erica, are you okay? Oh, Nathan, we were enough for you. We got to keep moving, Nathan. That super chat was for her. Nathan, cut me some slack. It's okay, James. Are your parents religious? Yes. Yes, you were never a young earth creationist.  No, both my parents are cool with what I do. They're both theistic evolutionists. They're Scientologists, Nathan, geez. Okay, I made that up. Okay, sorry, sorry, sorry, Erica. Are they really Scientologists? My parents? Yeah. Oh, you got really quiet. Okay. Sigefredo Sravya, thanks for your super chat. Who said, Mark, how do you not have an answer for transitional animals when 2020 adds millions of years from four million beasts because name animal giving birth to something it can't mate with? Well, I didn't get that, but go ahead if you got it. I actually did get it. So basically what they're doing, it's like Kent Hoven's argument, you know, the first dog or I think Ray Comfort pushes this one.  And they'll ask questions like, well, what did the first dog mate with? What did it mate with? Where did it find a female dog?  No, we've never said that individuals evolve. Individuals don't evolve, groups evolve. And if the group isn't large enough to evolve, it will go extinct. That's how evolution works. Once something gets down to a point where there's not enough genetic diversity, you've got an extinction event. And that is how we know now that we are going to, like in my backyard, I have 12 lions and tigers. When we lose lions and tigers, we're not going to grab two house cats and rebread tigers and lions. That's not going to happen. That's how we know that we have evolved to the point where we are now. And I really hope you understand this. Thanks so much. Pardon my rudeness, but just to keep things moving, appreciate it. Next up, your Super Chat, let's see. Pingfan Ren and Sean Hawkins, thanks for your Super Chat. We're going to get to those. We're working through the old list. Ian, YouTube, Ian, thanks for your Super Chat. Who said, creation wins again. Evolution is so comical. Fossils don't happen by the millions today. The most reasonable explanation is Noah's Flood. Prove us wrong. I mean, that would take an entire additional conversation. I would love to talk about Noah's Flood. I think originally I was going to have a conversation with Kent about that quite some time ago, but I don't think we ever followed up and he has some new requirements for debating that I'm not entirely down with. But yeah, good question. There's a lot of great conversations about it out there, especially here on James' channel. I would encourage you to check it out and see what you think. Yeah, I'd love to talk with Erica about Noah's Flood and take on a couple people. That would be a blast. You got it. Michael Dresden, thanks for your Super Chat. Who said, team creation already won. Debate done in all caps. That's okay. Snake was right, thanks for your Super Chat. I love the poses. Snake was right. They said, Taylor said, why do penguins have bird wing bones in their fins instead of fin bones? For Nathan. That's how they were designed. Gotcha, thanks for your Super Chat. Kango24, who said, fact for the clowns or creationists tonight, they say, silo camps, lung fish, and amphibians are direct transitional forms between lobe, thinned fish, and fully terrestrial tetrapods. Prove it. Yeah, prove it. Gotcha, Maynard says, thanks for your Super Chat. Who said, for Flat Earth, how did the white cliffs of Dover form? I've never heard of the white cliffs of Dover and I've run the largest Flat Earth group in the world. If you have some information on it, email me. Flat Earth Flyers at gmail.com. And Erica, a theistic evolutionist, is an oxymoron. Can you imagine never hearing of the white cliffs of Dover? OK, next up, P-Barns. Oh my god. P-Barns. Cliff supports you. Cloud, that's where they came from. All right, we've got to keep moving, Mark. All right, P-Barns, P-Barns, Mark. All right, P-Barns, thanks for your Super Chat. They said, I actually wish that G-Man was in this discussion instead of this disrespectful guy with the globe on his head. I need a shower. Why would you need a shower? Me too, me too. I wish G-Man was here as well. I had a great time with G-Man. He was a blast to Tosti. He's very lovable. Yeah, he's fiery in a different way. He is. And holy skepticism, thanks for your Super Chat. Who says, the spirit of the non-secretar show lives on here, LOL. Well, glad you're, I think it sounds like you're enjoying it. Appreciate that. Craig Montgomery, thanks for your Super Chat. I didn't see a question with it. Shoot it in the old live chat and tag me with that modern day debate. If you wanted me to ask a question, I'll put it in the Super Chats for you. The wandering musician, thanks for your Super Chat. They said, I love to debate my Gnostic atheist and theist friends. Erika and Mark are by far the better debaters, more respectful, and I'm proud of how you debated. Got a fan out there, guys. Yeah, I'm not. I lost it tonight. I should have stayed calmer. It's just really hard around these clowns. Next. There you go. You apologize for ad-homing with another one. I know one. Baby. Oh, gee. Look at this guy. Next up. Appreciate. Adam Abilya, thanks. Al-Bilya, thanks for your question. They said, off subject, Nathan, how long would it take for an object to hit the ground if released from 10 meters above it? Did you use 9.8 meters per second squared? If not, WTF. Well, that's globet. So I think means that globet is obviously not dropping that object in water. And it just agreed upon average relative to the medium, like he said. Cool story. Yep. Appreciate it. Brian Stevens, thanks for your question. It's the acceleration of gravity. It has nothing to do with what media it's in. Basically, Brian Stevens, thanks for your Patreon question, who said, is COVID a conspiracy? Everything is. No, there's an information around where they got everybody locked in their homes because of a cartoon bug on the news. But no, it's for sure real. And all the hospitals are empty. All the independent researchers, they're going out there and filming it. And also, the same symptoms of COVID happened from 5G. So you've got to research that, too. If someone wants to debate Nathan on this topic, we will take their offer.  So no, it's not a problem at all. No cell isonization at all. Not a high enough frequency, not a high enough power level. So no. With the compilation of all the RF propagation, there would eventually still be some ionization, actually. RF? What are you talking about? Nathan Thompson, would you debate Steve McCray on whether or not COVID is the real deal? Yeah, of course. I'm happy to do that. And if he wants to find a teammate, I'll bring Austin with me, too. Gotcha. Next up, thanks for your super chat from The Chat, who says, question for Erica. Can you explain to Austin and Nathan what dissent with inherent modification is? Thank you. No. I really honestly, I try to be honest about my abilities. I don't think that I can. I've brought that up in every other debate that I've ever had, and all my other interlocutors from Hoven, they're standing to G-Men, Praise, Bill Morgan, all of them. I didn't have to give that definition or explain it. But here, it seems to be a different story. Again, I don't mean that to be insulting. I just genuinely don't think if I had all the time in the world, I could. We genuinely don't care. Next up, Flat Earth Aussie Roscoe. Thanks for your super chat, who says, just show one random mutation which turned out to be beneficial and hereditary. Simple. Hoven virus. How's that? There you go. There's a mutation that was very advantageant.  So there you go.  Yeah, the S-Routine has 100% match to a human virus, so it was made in a lab, Mark. Did you know that? Sure it was. It's a conspiracy. Next up, thank you for agreeing on something. Red Cosmos Devil, thanks for your super chat. They said, Natalie, curious, what is your evidence for God? Well, God is the creator, and I don't know if that person's blind or not, but if you open your eyes, there's obviously a creation, so there has to be a creator. Gotcha. Next up, Speed of Sound of Gravity, thanks for your super chat, who said, to the fund for better creationists. You had a critic out there, guys. Opposer of Religion, thanks for your super, oh, he asked that one. Craig Montgomery, thanks for your super chat, who said, oh, my, here comes Austin's word salad. Austin, is it true that you use word salad? No, just apparently some people don't understand the words that I use.  Gotcha. Sam Davie, thanks for your super chat, said, Erica, you have the patience of a saint. Even when they try to change the subject, hope you're keeping safe during this COVID lockdown. I feel like, like I said, I don't know if I actually said this in a previous debate or not, but I was flying. I was flying when the COVID virus was ramping up in the UK. I flew back through Montreal and then down here, back to the States, and they had to medically evacuate a guy who was on our plane, who was suspected to be a COVID patient. And then I got sick for about a week after that, with all the classic symptoms. So I'm hoping that I already had it, and that I recovered, and that I'm good to go, but I'm still socially isolating. If I'm still shedding the virus, I don't want to give it to anybody else. As for having patients, honestly, I don't really get mad about this kind of stuff. It's people laughing at me, whatever. I've been there. So it's fine. I mean, again, mostly I'm just sad. Mark and I had a great conversation over the phone earlier today, and I was really looking forward to having a fun conversation with your partner here, but. Well, your partner constantly threw around. Yeah, me too, Erica, I really was. But you know, these, these are just clowns, obviously. We got to go to the next one. JD, thanks for your super chat. Who said, Austin and Nathan sound like science students using creationism as an excuse to fail Mark and Erica's class.


From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, connecting with thought leaders all around the world, this is a CUBE Conversation. Hi, buddy, this is Dave Vellante and welcome. As you know, I've been interviewing a number of CEOs throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. I'm really excited to have Alan Trefler here. He's the founder and CEO of Pegasystems. Alan, thanks for being part of the program. Thanks for having me, Dave. So let's get into it. I mean, when you were 27 years old, 37 years ago, 1983, you started PEGA. Now, you've seen a lot of cycles and never seen anything like this, I know. But certainly there was the 87 crash, you saw the banking crisis in the late 80s, early 90s, the .com bubble, 2008, 2009, and now this. I want to ask you, how have you responded to crises in the past? I mean, it's the hallmark of your company, the book you wrote is being able to manage through change. How did you manage through this one? What was your first move? Well, what I'll tell you is from the inception, we've always been a scrappy company. We never took any venture capital. We bootstrapped this firm. I went public in the late 90s. And we've now got a firm that will do over a billion in revenue this year and it's 5,400 staff. So we've built, I think, a cohesive team around a set of principles that really have matched the way that software and technology have evolved, but have still taken a pretty radically different approach to how it should be used by businesses and businesses. Well, so talk about some of the big waves that you've been riding over the years. I mean, you set out to help business people really communicate better with IT. You laid out in your book some of the challenges there. And as you pointed out many, many times, it's just, it gets more complex. People trying to understand the customer better with terminology like customer relationship, management people don't necessarily want a relationship. Talk about some of the observations that you've made around customer behavior and channels and how you've approached things a little bit differently as an entrepreneur. Sure, I think organizations, when they think about how they want to engage with their customers, typically make a couple of serious mistakes. One is they say they want to do a good job for their clients, but especially if they're a big company, they then devolve into actually doing the work in their channel. I mean, they have a mobile group that builds the mobile app, which is different than the group that handles the call center, which is different than a group that handles the website. And all this business logic gets baked into that. And that just destroys their ability to implement change rapidly, which particularly in this COVID era is so important for the organizations that are going to be successful. Now, on the other side, sometimes they get overly focused on their backend system, that they're worrying about how they're going to put in the perfect ERP system or accounting system, that will somehow support customer engagement better. But frankly, it never does. We think you need to think about your business from the center out. How do I apply AI to what I want to do for and with my client? And then how do I apply workflow and work management capability to ensure that those decisions are done optimally and effectively? That's what Peg is, well, worked on from our inception. And now as we've gone into our fifth complete generation of software, I think we've really crossed some boundaries that are pretty remarkable. So, I mean, well, what you've built is actually quite amazing. Actually, since you've written your book, the stock's exploded. I don't know if that's caused an effect, but nonetheless, some of the things that you talk about again in the book, you talk about people looking at data the wrong way. You've always, what's impressed me is you've always taken a systems view. You're not trying to optimize to your point on one little either technology or maybe optimizing on cost. If you look at the whole system and think about outcomes, that is going to yield ultimately better businesses. And so, I want to ask you- Thinking about end-to-end way of understanding how the technology should be applied is exactly what we've always believed. But the key is to be able to do this incrementally, iteratively, not monolithically, because no businesses can afford to whip out things. So, you need to be able to do this, what we call, say, one micro journey at a time. One set of things that are good for a customer. In today's era, it might send, as we do with many of our clients now under stress, we help them help their customers for around things like loan forbearance. How do you get people a payment plan because they just don't have the money to pay for their loans today? And how do you do that while you keep them as customers as opposed to, well, situations that could be far worse? Let's talk a little bit about machine intelligence. When you started Pego as the same year I started in the industry at IDC, AI was all the rage. And then it just never happened. You had a very long AI winter, but now it's just starting to come back. You're seeing, obviously there are certain technical the amount of data, the processing power, et cetera, and the cost are much more aligned.  Talk a little bit about that sort of incremental change that you're adding into your platform and how you go about doing that. And I want to ask you about some of your thoughts on those trends. Certainly, well, AI has been, from my point of view, a really big thing for the last decade. There was a set of false starts and we actually saw that they were false starts so we didn't get sucked into it. But come around 2010, we made an enormous push to bring machine learning and decisioning into our work management platform. And it's in there beautifully and it's doing amazing things. I just saw one of our customers, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, your CEO in his quarterly earnings announcement, led by talking about what the PECA system, what our system, which they call a customer engagement engine, is doing for them. During the fires that earlier this year were ravaging Australia, they used that to send personalized, not just messages, but also relief to people whose homes were burned out so they weren't going to be able to pay their credit card bill. They didn't have to call the contact center. We reached out to the brilliant work that they did using our technology, reached out to preemptively make those customers feel great. And now with the COVID epidemic, that organization is doing the same types of things which really both endears them with their customers but also gets tied into that efficiency layer because you stop doing needless work because you're being smart as a result of using AI to figure out what to do and to learn from the outcomes that come from that. So we've seen the playbook of, you see startups, they get out, they're well-funded and they point to the large established companies and they say, oh, that's an old stack, they can't respond, innovators dilemma, et cetera, et cetera. One of the things about PECA is you've been able to transform yourselves over the years, build for change, I guess. An example, for instance, going from perpetual to an ARR type of model which you very successfully have done. And now, like I said, bringing in RPA, but I want to ask you about RPA. A lot of competitors out there, big valuations, kind of pointing at you guys as the incumbent, you have RPA, but what do you see within that space specifically? I see a lot of delusional behavior. The ability to put robots in to do little pieces of task work can make sense in some situation, particularly if you don't have a good API, a good application programming interface to get data in and out. A robot in that sort of situation can be a very, very helpful stopgap. But you really need an engine driven by AI and driven by process, process automation that has to be at the heart. That's the dog to the robotic process automation tail. And a lot of these RPA vendors are running around saying, all you need is the tail. I'll tell you that in the last week, two of the quote biggest leaders have both had massive layoffs in them. A little Google work you can find out exactly who they are. And it's because their stuff isn't working well. I want to ask you about entrepreneurship during and coming out of a pandemic. Is it a good time to do a startup? Not that you're thinking about doing a startup, but advice to entrepreneurs? Well, I think it's a terrific time to have a startup mentality. Part of why I think we've been able to reinvent our technology, literally five times over our years is that we're always prepared to look from a new angle and apply that sort of entrepreneurial thinking and scrappiness. However, in terms of starting something right now, it's a very uncertain time. It's uncertain as to when customers will be back in the market. It's uncertain as to exactly how hard certain industry segments would be hit. And so whereas I think that even during recessions, it could be a fine time to launch a startup. And in fact, that's when I launched a startup was during a time when the economy was not doing that great. I would wait a little bit right now to see exactly when things were going to stabilize. I think that it's just a little too uncertain, but that time will emerge again. So I want to ask you. So again, again in your book, you talked about big data, big problems. I always joke to my friends who have little kids, little kids, little problems.  You're now a billion dollar company and you're bringing in new talent. You've set your sights on becoming a multi-billion dollar company. You've got a great track record. I wanted you to talk about sort of how you see the future and what your aspirations are. You don't have to give specific numbers, but just frame that for us. Well, first of all, just to be clear, the numbers in terms of billion, that's an actual revenue number, as opposed to some of these valuations which we've seen with companies like WeWork might be a little bit tentative. So what we see as being central to our growth and value prop are a couple of things. First, we've made our software tremendously easier to use, particularly in our last release, which came out about six months ago, really, really straightforward for business people even to take ownership of their projects and work really collaboratively with IT. So that's one aspect of how we grow and want to accelerate the growth. The second aspect is Pegger Cloud. Last year, Pegger Cloud grew enormously. It's now more than half our business. And for people to come on Pegger Cloud, where we do all of the database work, we do all the heavy lifting for them from a technology point of view, also provides a route to growth. Though we also support what we call client cloud, which is where one of our customers wants to run it on their own cloud. And I think the third thing that we're doing that we're hoping is going to allow us to accelerate our growth is to broaden our go-to market function, to make our go-to market function just larger by continuing to hire. And by the way, this is a great time for a company with a half a billion dollars of cash in the bank to be out looking to hire talent. Looking to hire and broaden and deepen our go-to market and how we work especially with those awesome customers, some of whom are suffering, but are going to come back and they're going to increasingly need to change their digital infrastructure. Their digital transformation, we think, is going to benefit from platforms like ours in unique ways. Well, Alan, I love the story. I just pointed out, you just tap the credit markets, you got a fantastic balance sheet. You got a lot of tailwinds despite this pandemic. And as we often say, you've got a founder as the CEO and we've seen how that really culturally makes huge differences at companies. Alan, thanks so much for coming on our CEO series. Really appreciate your time. Thank you, Dave, it's been a real pleasure. All right, thank you for watching, everybody. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE. We'll see you next time.


Well, Race Off One is done and dusted the Monster Energy FIM Speedway of Nations has concluded for one night. So, we've got Poland, we've got Sweden and we've got Germany heading to Russia. Sweden came out on top tonight, but who will join them? Well, next Saturday we'll decide in Manchester. Will Great Britain join them? Who knows? Make sure you stick around to find out tickets are still available for next Saturday and all the rest of the information will be across all of our social media. See you next Saturday.


Hello, I welcome you all once again to my channel, Explore Education, I am Dr. Rashmi Singh, Assistant Professor, Department of Education, Assistant Khanda Galshri College, University of Palahava. And earlier to this lecture, I have taken a topic on Purposive Sampling and this time I am dealing with critical case sampling. It is a subtype of Purposive Sampling and the lecture will be in bilingual mode and will be useful for various teaching examinations, your research purposes, your MA education, MF classes and any and various other purposes. Okay. So, let's start with critical case sampling. What is critical case sampling? Look, sometimes critical case sampling is taken as a summary of Purposive Sampling or you can ask what is the difference between Purposive Sampling or N-Critical Case Sampling. So, you will have to know that critical case sampling is a type of Purposive Sampling. So, what is critical case sampling? Critical case sampling is a type of Purposive Sampling technique. So, as soon as it is a type of Purposive Sampling, what will happen? It will come as a non-probability and it will not generalize your statistical generalization. That is particularly useful in Exploratory Qualitative Research. So, we generally use Purposive Sampling in Qualitative Research or in Exclusively Qualitative Research. We cannot use Purposive Sampling in Quantitative Research. Or we have very few research with limited resources. So, as per our purpose, we will take data from it. As well as research, where a single case or number of cases can be decisive in explaining the phenomena of interest. So, it is this decisive aspect of critical case sampling that is arguably the most important. So, it is this decisive aspect of critical case sampling that is arguably the most important. So, it is this decisive aspect of critical case sampling that is arguably the most important. So, it is this decisive aspect of critical case sampling that is arguably the most important. So, it is this decisive aspect of critical case sampling that is arguably the most important. So, how will we know if a case is decisive? How will we know if it is a decisive case? Think about the following statements. If it happens there, it will happen anywhere. That is, it should be so critical that we can say that if it happens there, it can happen anywhere. Or if it doesn't happen there, it won't happen anywhere. And it should be so critical that if we know that it won't happen there, it won't happen anywhere else. We will understand the following statements. And if that group is having problems, if that particular group is having problems, then we can be sure all groups are having problems. Then this means that every group case and problem will be that case. Then we will be able to decide that this is a critical case. And who is telling this to Patan Sahab? He is telling that there is a lot of work on sampling, on qualitative research sampling. Whilst such critical cases should not be used to make statistical generalizations. In this, in the purpose sampling, we were also saying that we cannot do statistical generalizations in the purpose sampling. Why cannot we? Because our sample is not representative of our population. It can be argued that they can help in making logical generalizations. But we can give logical generalizations in a critical case. How can we give them? If this is happening here, then it will happen here as well. If it doesn't happen here, then it won't happen anywhere. There should be so many criticalities. However, such logical generalizations must be made carefully. But those logical generalizations should be done carefully. Okay. Sorry. Then, the process of selecting a small number, how Patan has defined critical cases. The process of selecting a small number of important cases. How to select important cases? He is saying that cases that are likely to yield, can be taken for that case. From which we feel that most information and have the greatest impact on the development of knowledge. That is to say, we are working on the matter. In that case, we can give the highest number of cases. And if we have the greatest impact on the development of knowledge, that means we will have the same critical case. Sometimes we can make logical generalizations by taking a handful of special cases. Because they provide us enough information about the general population. Okay. Sometimes we can make logical generalizations with a handful of special cases. Why? Because they provide us enough information about the general population. So much information that we can make generalizations about the general population. But since we have not put any statistics in it. That is why we are not saying statistical generalizations as logical generalizations. Okay. And what is critical case sampling? It is sampling where it is important to obtain maximum applicability. We will have to see that applicability. That means that the application part is maximum. Okay. If the information and findings hold true for a critical case. If the findings we are getting are right for a critical case. It is likely to hold true for other cases and communities as well. So we can say with certainty that these are right for other cases and communities. Critical cases are those that are likely to yield the most and most important information that will prove a hypothesis or solve a problem. And that will have the greatest impact on the development of knowledge. The same thing will happen. How will we know that this is a critical case? If we do not get much information from it. If the knowledge is being developed. If we have the most emphasis on it. Then it will be a critical case. Now you will understand when you look at the examples. They are saying that for example. If even the weakest students can answer the questions. We can generalize that everyone must have understructed lecture. Right? We have studied something in our class. And we feel that this is the weakest child. The weakest student. We would not have understood it. But even if that weak student answers it. We can be pretty sure that everyone understood the lecture. Because the weakest student told us. That means everybody can understood the lecture. Similarly if even the most brilliant students could not answer. We can reach the conclusion that the lecture was ineffective. Similarly if even the most brilliant students could not answer. We will have to believe that the lecture was not effective. We will not be able to understand it. So this is the weakest student. This is the most brilliant student. This will be a critical case. Okay. Similarly for example. Suppose the national policy makers. If the people who demand the national policy. What do they want to know? They want to get local communities involved in making decisions. They want to take local communities along. To make decisions. About how their local program will be run. They want to know how the local program will be run. But they are not sure that the communities will understand. The complex regulations governing their involvement. But they are not sure. That the complex regulations that the government is applying. They will be able to understand. So what they will do? The first critical case is to evaluate the regulations. In a community of well educated citizens. The most educated people in that community. Go and talk to them. If they can't understand the regulations. If they can't understand the regulations. Then less educated folks are sure to find the regulations. Incomprehensible. So we can understand that the people who are uneducated. The uneducated folks. The educated ones who have studied less. They will not be able to understand it. Because the well educated ones. They will not be able to understand it. And conversely one might consider. The critical case to be a community. Consisting of people with quite low levels of education. They are saying. What is the opposite of that? That if there is a very low level of education in the community. If they can understand the regulations. Anyone can. One thing they can do is. That we have taken the well educated ones. If the well educated ones are not able to understand. Then we will believe that the less educated ones. They will not be able to understand it. But the opposite of that. That if we talk to the less educated ones. And if they are understanding the regulations. Then what can we say. That the highly educated ones. The well educated ones. They will be able to understand it. That is why they are saying. If it is not there. Then it will not be there. And if it is there. Then it can be anywhere. Like this. So this is the critical case. So this is also a purpose sampling. Because our purpose is all. But we have to pay attention to this. That we have to choose the critical case. And that is why the name of this sampling. Critical case sampling. And you have been told. How to decide the criticality. That according to that. You can give logical generalizations. On the whole population. That should be the critical case. Understood. So what is the conclusion. That this type of sampling. Is particularly useful. Small number of cases can be sampled. If you have to talk to very few people. About the sample. So this sampling can be very good. And that small number of cases. Assuming they can be classified as critical. And the small number of cases. That should be critical. Is the ones more likely to provide. A wealth of information. Means you will not get the most. Critical case is one. That permits. Analytic generalization. As if a theory can work. In the conditions of the critical case. It is likely to be held to work. Anywhere. They are saying. That if the critical case. Is working. So this means. That it will work everywhere. So this type of analytical. Or logical generalization. Critical case sampling. Permits. Okay. So this critical case sampling. So I hope. That now you. Critical case sampling. Will not be the equivalent of. Purposive sampling. In fact. Purposive sampling. Is a big term. And qualitative research. Is. Purposive sampling. And there are many types of. Purposive sampling. Of which. Critical case sampling. Is a subtype. Okay. So thank you. And don't forget to. Like and subscribe my channel. Explore education. And join my telegram group too. Okay. Then from my side. Happy learning.


Now, we talk about the sexual reproduction, which is more advantageous and which is present in more higher forms of life. Sexual reproduction is the process, which involves two organisms, one is typically called a male and other is typically called a female and there is an involvement of specific cells called gametes. Gametes are the specific cells, which are produced by division in a specific types of cell in the body called germ cells. All the cells of the body other than germ cells are called the autosomal cells and these cells do not have capability to make gametes. Gametes could be formed only by specific kind of cells, specific line of cells called the germ cells. These cells typically divide by the process of meiosis into two cells called gamete. Gametes are male and female, either whether they are male or female, they divide by meiosis and they have half a number of chromosomes, we call it haploid number of chromosomes that is also called sometimes N number of chromosomes, because meiosis we call it a reduction division. It divides a cell in a way that its chromosomes become half and one cell divides into ultimately four cells, each with a half number of chromosomes with a haploid set of chromosomes in it. Gametes also have another capability that in the first phase of meiosis genetic recombinations takes place in the dividing cell. This genetic recombination even add more value to the sexual reproduction. So sexual reproduction takes place in more higher forms of life, which are better adapted to their environments. Now we talk about sexual reproduction in flowering plants, plants that makes flowers. Flowering plants are the more advanced forms or more developed forms of the plants. Flowering plants actually have their reproductive parts as flowers. Flowers have the reproductive parts of the plants. Flowers have male and female, both parts in the same flower. You can see in the diagram above that one flower showing the male parts called stamen and the female part in the other flower which is showing the female parts called the carpals. So stamen is the male part of the flower and carpal is the female part of the flower. Both of these exist in the same flower. We actually to show them separately removed one from each flower. And how sexual reproduction occur. These both of these parts they produces the gametes called sperms and the ova in the stamen and in the carpal. Then fertilization occur with the help of a process called pollination. The transfer of pollen grains which have the male gametes from enter of a stamen. Enter is a part which actually retains the pollen grains which are the male gametes from the stamen and pollen grains are transferred from the stamen to the carpal which is the female part and from the top of the carpal they are these pollen grains. They move towards the ovary which have ova that is the female gametes. So the fertilization occur after pollination. Pollination is a very important phenomena in the flowering plants. There are two types of pollinations. One is called self pollination and other is called a cross pollination. So the self pollination is the transfer of pollen grains from stamen of a plant to the carpal of the same plant. And cross pollination is the transfer of pollen grains from the flower of one plant to the carpal of another plant. Cross pollination have an advantage because the two plants they are different though they are from same species, but because the plants are different their characteristics may change. There may be some modifications because there is a combination of characteristics. Cross pollination occur with the help of sometimes wind that is the pollen grains are transferred by wind from one plant to another plant sometimes it occur by animals. When animals feed upon some part of the plant they have to sit on the plant and when they sit on these the pollen grains they attaches to their body surface and when they sit on another plant the pollen grains are transferred. Sometimes these are also transferred by water. When the fertilization takes place then the zygote is formed by the joining of male and female gametes zygote is formed zygote develops into embryo. This embryo have certain protective and some other layers particularly two specific leaves or may be sometimes one leaf which are called cotyledons which provides food for the growing embryo and this whole combination of this cotyledon the embryo and the coat is called seed we commonly call it a seed. When the seed is formed then the ovary is converted into a fruit that is ovaries wall become fleshy and scaly sometimes scaly sometimes fleshy and it is filled with different types of materials and we call it a fruit. When we know that usually when we eat different types of fruits like citrus fruit or something else we have seeds packed inside the fruit. When we eat these fruits or when the animals eat these fruit they actually throw away those seeds on various places. This is how these plants are also distributed to different areas because animals if for example they have eaten a fruit they may throw seeds far away from the same plant and those seeds will grow into a newer plant. So this is also a method of dispersal of these plants which helps them in their say getting more distributed in wider areas. The floral parts however saples, petals they fall away from this ripened ovary or the leaf. In a picture taken here of the hibiscus flower you can see its flowering parts its anthers upon a stem which are exposed outside. In the picture next to it you can see fruits of a wild plant in brown color.