Everybody, today we are debating human evolution and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. Erica joining us along with praise. It's going to be a fun one, folks. Very excited and also want to let you know if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as you've got a lot more debates coming up. In fact, if you haven't heard of it, if you have been in a cave on Mars with your fingers in your ears this Sunday, we are going to start with a debate on tour in person in Texas with David Wood and Samuel Nassan and then on Monday, oh it just keeps getting better. It's going to be off the charts. It's gonna be super dank. We are going to have David Wood and Matt Dillahunty pictured at the bottom right of your screen where they will be debating God, morality, and secular humanism. So that's going to be a wild one and that is also in person at the atheist experience studio. So that would be a blast. But anyway, folks, this is going to be a great one tonight. Want to let you know if you have a question during this debate, feel free to fire that question into the old live chat. And if you tag me with an at-modern-day debate, it makes it easier for me to make sure I don't miss any. We will read through as many as we can at the end. Can't guarantee we'll get all of them, but we'll sure try.  So that means we have no views. I never have any like particular videos that are just me spouting off about my views on this or that. This is a purely debate channel. And so we want you to feel welcome, whether you be Christian, atheist, Republican, Democrat, you name it, whatever walk of life you're from, we hope you feel welcome. And with that, we are going to jump right into this. Want to let you know up front, both of the speakers, as you're listening, if you're like, hmm, I want to hear more. Well, you can hear more. I have conveniently placed their links down in the description. So feel free to check those out. And praise. I've got the timer set for nine minutes and 59 seconds. Don't think about going over it because I would enjoy. That's right. Don't test me. I would. There's nothing I'd enjoy more than cutting you off praise. So with that, thanks so much. And praise. The floor is all yours. So I salute you, James, for setting up this debate.  And I appreciate Erica for agreeing to this discussion with me. It should be a good discussion. I have to do one quick thing to have to give a shout out to SFT tomorrow for a debate with Erica. So check that out on his channel. So yeah, I just want to briefly mention that. And also, I feel there are many paradoxical paradoxical holes in evolution that can be exposed, but I decided to focus on the specific narrative evolution is credulously hold to regarding the so called human evolution. I want to highlight what Jeff Hecht had to say about human evolution. Quote, if humans do not match chimpanzees genetically more than other mammals, then common ancestry is falsified. End quote. Let's work off that. And let's see if there's possible data that shows other humans. I mean, other mammals are more genetically similar to us and chimpanzees, which consequently would debunk evolution. How about must musculos aka the common mouse, the mouse genome was sequenced and the data reveals that mice are 95% similar to humans citation your genome.com. Interesting. Interestingly, Sean Humphrey and Russ tell him published papers showing pigs are even more genetically similar to us than mice, which would make pigs 95% plus similar to us. How about cats? A study in 2007 showed Albus and Ian cats are 90% similar to humans. Lastly, dogs have been shown to be 95% genetically similar to humans to citation Stanley current PhD. So we have three clear cutting three or four clear cut examples and mammals other than chimps being 90% plus similar to humans. Subsequently, that brings us to the genetic similarity of chimps and other primates with humans. In 2003, Tatsuya Anzai published research showing humans and chimpanzees are 87% similar after sequencing 1.9 million base pairs. This is damage to evolution because this was only a small sample size. Moreover, the chimpanzee sequencing and analysis consortium published a complete draft of the sequencing of the chimpanzee genome, where they found that 2.4 billion of the base pairs of the human genome line up nearly perfectly with 2.4 billion of the base pairs of the chimp genome. As the paper of the draft sequence says quote, best reciprocal nucleotide level alignments of the chimpanzee and human genomes over 2.4 gigabases gigabytes of high quality sequence, including the 89 megabytes from chromosome X and 7.5 megabytes from chromosome Y end quote. So out of the 3.2 billion base pairs in the human genome, and about the same in the chimp genome 2.4 billion of them line up nearly perfectly. It turns out there are some differences within 2.4 billion million pairs. And they account for about 3% of those 2.4 billion base pairs. So if those 2.4 billion base pairs lined up perfectly, the chimp and human genome would be about 75% similar. However, given that 3% of the those base pairs don't line up perfectly human and chimp DNA are about 72% similar. Several geneticists obviously looked at this data and there are those who think that number will eventually drop below 72. Once all that once all the data is in. In fact, Dr. Richard Bugs geneticist at University of Florida says quote, I predict that when we have a reliable complete chimpanzee genome, the overall similarity of human genome will prove to be close to 70%. And very far from 99% end quote citation digit brawn.nl even if we go with a conservative number like 95% similar, which is citation from the National Academy of Sciences RJ Britain is still fall short of the pig dog and mouse, therefore demonstrating demonstratably and conclusively disproving disproving common ancestry as per Jeff Hect. This ultimately negates evolution because without common ancestry or even human evolution, there is no such thing as evolution. I'm going to take it a step further and show humans are completely unique to primates. Only 29% of the chimpanzee proteins are one for one identical to human citation nature volume for 37 pages 69 through 87. In fact, humans are now considered similar to orangutan, more similar to orangutans and chimpanzees. And the citation science daily June 18 2009, hereby overthrowing the conventional viewpoint of human evolution. The chimp Y chromosome is only half as long as a human Y chromosome, meaning that there is less than 50% overall similarity. The authors of the paper concluded that the human white chimp chromosome differences were as great as the differences they expected between humans and birds. Citation John Hawks January January 14 2010. In order for the eight chromosome to evolve into the white chromosome, apes had to add 41 genes. In order for apes to add genes, they would have to have a genetic mechanism to generate new genes and insert them into the chromosomes. But they should not have any gene generating system, nor do apes have a gene insertion system. This means that ape to human evolution theories missing the genetic mechanisms necessary for evolution to actually take place. Why is it that primates are twice as strong as us beating sumo wrestlers in a tug of war? Why is it their jaws are far superior than ours? They literally can rip into a coke and in seconds. Why is it they are a completely immune to infection? When we are we are not immune to infection. They have dense thick for for for protecting them from the elements. We got cancer. We get cancer. They do not we sunburn. They do not primates have a far better methylation system. They have far better vision and see colors better than us humans need shoes. They I mean, yeah, and apes do not. They do not they have they have no allergies. Their hearing is better than us. They have three bones in their ear. They have better bone destiny. For example, they can fall from a tree and break nothing. They are immune to infectious diseases when millions when millions of humans die. If we are part of the primate species and evolution has utterly failed. Even evolutionists have to concede we lost something and not gain something. Yet primates who not have a lock and knee joint for upright walking while primates can walk on two legs for a short time. They are really quasi present on the ground and have and have break break itters. They're break itters are arm swingers, swingers. Humans have an S shape, S shaped curve spine so that the head and the S shaped curve spine so that the head and the trunk are balanced over the center of the gravity primates do not. We have a wide curved pelvis providing large attachment sites for strong abducted rotator muscles primates do not a planter. We have a planter grade foot. They do not. So if you take the profile the slope back to the large dross in a small cranium eight noses are relatively wide and flat. It chimpanzee cranial capacity averages about 400 cubic centimeters while human capacity averages around 1350 Neanderthals had 1520. The most apparent difference is language humans can fluently speak multiple languages while apes cannot permanent they can they they can't even permanently several primates were hooked to electrodes and were able to speak. However, without these electrodes hooked up they could only grunt and screech. It's abundantly clear that humans were created uniquely and not through any evolutionary process with that I end my time. Thank you for your time. Thank you for that praise. We will now jump into Erica's opening statement. So thanks very much Erica for being with us. By the way, have to give Erica some serious street cred as it is past midnight where she is in London right now and she's been a super good sport. Even letting me I was so behind she let me delay by an hour. I owe you. Thanks Erica. Oh, there's nothing to worry about. Honestly, I'm, I'm staying up these these days pretty late. Anyways, I've got to, I've got to sort myself out with my my thesis and what am I going to do because there's a pandemic going on. So that's why I'm more than happy to to be here distracting myself distracting other people and engaging in some conversation. So thank you praise for your opening statement. I do very much appreciate it. If it's okay with everybody is it all right if I share my screen? Yes. Okay, excellent. All right, let's see if I can actually manage to get this right. I'm always screwing the sharing screen thing up. All right, can you guys see that? Yes. Okay, very cool. All right, let me get this. Let me get that up. Just start the slideshow if I can. All right. So my name is Erica. My credentials are kind of as follows. I got a BSA in animal science for my undergraduate picked up a minor in biology and another one in anthropology. I'm currently pursuing my master's of research in primatology. So I love to talk about primates. It's pretty much my my favorite subject. And I maintain that both myself praise and of course, everyone watching we're all apes. And we all fall under the natural classification of other primates and other mammals in general. We're probably going to recognize some of the slides and in this presentation is the same one that I used in talking to Kent Hovind because I think it I think that this one, it kind of has a perfect a perfect setup for the conversation we're having. So human evolution, it's kind of undeniable. Oops, there we go. So as I said previously, we do indeed fall into all of the categorizations that other animals fall into, we're in karyotes, we're animals, we're kordates, we're vertebrates, we're mammals and we're eutharians. Everything that we use all the traits that we use to categorize any other creature in any of these categories, we can also apply to ourselves there. There is no difference morphologically. But we're also primates. And when I say that we're primates, I mean, there are myriad of different kinds of traits and categories that we use to classify the other primates completely removing humans from the equation. The problem is when we look to humans, they also fall into this category, we have enormously large brains, even when accounting for our body size, an ocular color vision, grasping dexterous hands that end in digits to put fingers rather than claws and flexible shoulder girdles. We fall into this along with the myriad of other different mammals. But we're also haplorons, because we have dry noses instead of wet noses, we can't synthesize our own vitamin C and our lips aren't split. But if you look in the mirror, you can still see a REM then of it. We also have post orbital plates rather than bars.  But we're also semiophores or sometimes known as anthropoid primates because we have all of those previously mentioned traits, but we also have even larger brain to body ratios. We also have the emergence of these special super derived social organizations usually made of multiple males and females, also, as well as their dependent offspring. We also have unique structures hind with regard to like our hind feet, our ankles, our hands, etc. We've kicked, we've kicked out the tarsier forms in this category. But we're also catarines because our nostrils open downward rather than upward. And if you pop that rhesus macaque's mouth open right there, which I wouldn't recommend because some of them have rather large canines, you'll find that they have the same dental formula as you do with two one two three. We also none of us have any prehensile tails, unfortunately, so we can't grab things. But we're also hominoids because we have the unique wine molar pattern and reduced caudal vertebrates. You'll notice that when you look at any of the other apes, none of them really have tails. And unfortunately, like I said, we fall into that too.  And all of the other apes have a more increased propensity towards bipedality. But we're also hominids because we share a 96% similarity with with essentially the chimpanzees and the bonobos when we're looking at coding base pairs, which I'm sure we'll talk about at great length. All of the hominids use tools and have sort of a protoculture where they pass along these traits to their offspring. This happens in chimpanzees and bonobos and especially in orangutans. We also have long gestational periods and we take care of our kids for a long period of time. Most of us are also omnivorous. There was a recent study that was very cool done out in West Africa on how chimpanzees are starting to use sticks that they sharpened with their canines to poke at bush babies and essentially skewer them and then consume them. So you know, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. So similar to how you would classify this leopard in all of these varying categories, you can also compare without with humans because we are indeed primates. We share all the traits that primates have, same with the hominids, same with genus homo, etc. So essentially my point here is that there is no reasonable way to classify the primates morphologically, by phylogeny, really any any way that you can reasonably create categories in the animal kingdom and reasonably exclude the humans. We share too many of these traits. Essentially it boils down to saying, well, maybe there's a soul, but that's not empirical. And as creation is so frequently proposed, it's not science. So we could also talk about genetics, as I know we will. So when genomes, when genomes are kind of aligned side by side, this is like it's known as a genomic comparison. And we do this to essentially see, all right, well, how similar is genome to genome B? And we do this in humans to determine paternity. And this is this is what I harp on every single time. The way that we do a paternity test in a human is basically a dumbed down version of full sequential comparison that we do in when we're comparing humans with chimpanzees and with bonobos. You'll see three links down here at the bottom. And the most recent one, the one at the top is from 2012. I noticed that praise didn't link very many, you know, recent sources at all. Most of them were indeed quite old. So I tend to defer to the most recent literature. And this indeed showed that not only are humans most closely related to chimps and bonobos, but they are most closely related to us when compared to the genomes of the gorillas and the orangutans, where each other's closest living relative. And that's pretty cool. So essentially, if you're going to kick out genomic comparison as a means, you've got a lot of courts to call. But not only are DNA tested miscible in courts, so are fossils. So we're going to talk about paleontology because I love paleontology. So if you look at these two images here, you got to get from point A to point B, right? Because although our common ancestor with chimps wasn't a chimp, it was indeed likely very chimp-like. So you'll notice a bunch of different characteristics between these two little pictures here that are unique to the organism which bears it. So we can kind of make a prediction. Can we show a gradient from the ape-like ancestor to moderate humans through fossil morphology in geologic time? The answer is yes, we can. Before we move on, I'm going to say Kent is quite a big fan of saying, well, it's just a fossil. It's born in the dirt. You don't know it proved it had any offspring. But animals are very unlikely to fossilize overall. So when we find specimens, it's actually statistically extremely likely that they were a member of a sustainable population at some point. So let's talk about some of these ancestors because they're really cool. So we have the ape-like hominids. Oh, yes. Pseolanthropus chadensis, Australopithecus cadaba and ramidus and aurontum genensis. And these guys we knew were more bipedal than modern chimpanzees and modern members of genus pen in general because of their femoral head and the shape of their pelvis. We also know that their brain case was getting larger and the foramen magnum was scooting underneath the skull to allow for bipedality. We also have the mosaic hominids. These are going to be our Australopithecines, even more derived traits. And the reason we know that Lucy walked upright instead of being a knuckle walker like answers and genesis likes to propose is again, because of the pelvis, the feet, the knees, the foramen magnum at the base of the skull and the spine, which I'm sure we'll talk plenty about. We also see some cool pictures at the bottom here where they can show an image of the tong child, which is a very famous fossil that looks very human indeed. And that's because one of the proposed hypotheses for why humans have head shapes, skull shapes, the way that they are, is due to a phenomenon known as retained neotony, where we keep traits that are younger, younger individuals of our ancestors had. Here are some really cool comparisons that we see when we're comparing sort of salinthobus or chimpanzees all the way up through the Australopithecines and two modern humans. Look at the knees on the bottom right. They are almost indistinguishable from one another, and they are valgus in nature. This is so that we can hold our body weight directly underneath us and efficiently walk. Look at the heads of the femurs. Look at the way that the toe is in line. Look at the parabolic pallet. Look at the foramen magnum. This Darwin couldn't ask for a better transition than the ones that we have found so far. It is an unbearably rich fossil record. So there's the classic, well, which one is the Azca 5-year-old depicted of different kinds. They're going to pick the chimp, which means that Australopithecus apharenzis is going to be a part of our gang, which would be that individual at the bottom left. That would be a part of the humankind if you're going by morphology alone. Finally, we have the late herb, rather, almost finally. We have a homo habilis and homoroodle fensis. We are getting close to anatomically modern humans because this brain case is rising up all the way from 700 to 900 square cubic centimeters, and we're getting more reduction of the prognathism. So this is more where we're looking at the cranium, the post cranium, not so much that movement to bipedality, which occurred pretty early. And we also have the late intelligent omnivores. These are going to be our classic, what we would consider, quote, unquote, human, but they are really just members of our genera. So we have erectus, heidelbergensis, neanderthalensis, and floresiensis, all of which overlapped and indeed lived at the same time period, which is really, really cool. We have some other guys here that it's opens in the leddy, but we don't have time to talk about them. So what I'm going to say is that this hypothesis is indeed knocked out of the park like a home run baseball. You couldn't certainly you couldn't say that A is going to overnight become something like M in this picture, but A to B, B to C, C to D. These are found through geologic time and indeed the morphologies change subtly. This is macro evolution. And we can talk about dating too if we want radiometric dating and why it is indeed valid. So here are the answers if you want to pause and see who's who in that last picture. So just bones in the dirt. I don't really think so. Like I said, they're statistically likely to be members of populations. Specimens such as skull appeared laid out in the geologic column according to their morphology and fit into the tree of human evolution along with their radiometric dates without known exceptions. We don't find oddballs. There is no rabbit in the Cambrian, so to speak. And such because of this, we know that by an enormous margin most of these display the evolution of hominids through geologic time rather than species killed in a Joaquin deluge. So, you know, I just think this is really cool stuff. And I don't know why so many people seem so eager to just toss it to the wayside. So to begin to convince me and invalidate the current classification system of relation by genetics and reform all those sports systems, then invalidate radiometric dating and prove that all the hominids lived and died in the global flood. Formulate a kind that can empirically separate modern humans from the other apes as well as between the hominids and be able to tell me which of those hominids are humans, members of the human kind or the ape kind. And finally, we need to create a population growth system that accommodates the number of stone tools found in Africa. This is something that I didn't touch on, but we can touch on. That's kind of a little side note. There's way too many stone tools in Africa to accommodate for people leaving the Tower of Babylon going over there and just leaving trillions of stone tools. Trillion with the T. So yeah, that's pretty much my presentation. I'm ready to have a discussion. Thank you very much, Erica. And we'll jump right into the discussion mode. I'm going to pull you out of screen share if you're already. Please do. I don't know how to do it by myself. Let's see. I am remembering how to do this. I can just get it. I might not have to do it. I used to have to do this for Neff all the time. We miss Nephilim free. I wish I hope he's doing well. So now if we love you, buddy, hopefully we get to have Nephilim. We haven't had Nephilim in a long time. It's time. We need to get Nephilim. It has to be his triumphant return. Like the time is now. That's right. So with that open conversation, thanks so much, both of you. And just a quick update, folks, their links are both in the description just so you know, in case you hadn't heard. Very cool. All right, praise kick us off. What do you want to talk about? I'm ready. All right. Yeah, I'd like to address some of your points in your presentation. Please do. Yeah. So the one of the things that come out, you said we should not find a rabbit out of the place in the geological column. Well, the Ashley phosphate beds in North Carolina actually show there. There's a rabbit in that and in the geological column there. So I'm not sure if you're familiar with that. I am not, but I can look it up as we speak. The Ashley phosphate beds you said. Yeah. OK. Geo science world. Do you have? Do you know when this was essentially proposed as being a rabbit?  Right, yeah. I would be utterly shocked, but I'm not seeing anything from a cursory from a cursory look. Yeah, I'll have to dig up this citation. But a couple other things you mentioned about the jaw shape. Well, our jaw shape is parabolic shape. No primate has that. So there's another distinction there, I think is needs to be made. Well, but praise we are primates. Can you give a single reason morphologically or genetically as to why we're not primates? Sure. Yeah. We have let's see here. We have twenty two. We have 13 pairs of ribs. And I mean, we have 12 pairs of ribs and apes have thirteen pairs of ribs. We we can even go we have thirty three bones in our vertebrae and apes have twenty two or primates have twenty two. I mean, there's so many. Yes, but that's in the caudal vertebrae and the rib situation is in no way even remotely as severe as the chromosome situation. And yet we still find explanations for that in proposed fusion sites that are accepted by the by essentially everyone besides Tompkins, at least in the genetics community. Now, if you want to talk about about genetics, we certainly can. But I find that it's it's very interesting to me that when I have a conversation with the creationist, I say, what makes us not a primate and they'll list sort of sort of strange little tidbits like like essentially what what you just mentioned here or perhaps like a protein difference, like we're looking at the similarities between genetics similarities between two proteins, right? And they'll be like, look, look how different they are. And my point is, well, yes, they should be different. They shouldn't be identical. Otherwise, we would be chimpanzees. But the fact of the matter is from our gestational period to to our tool use to how we structure our social systems, there are invariably behavioral similarities that can and are drawn, but also genetically. Again, I listened to every single citation you made, and I wrote them down in my notebook. And while you were, you know, I was trying to to do my due diligence and listen at the same time. But when I would have a moment, I would look it up very quickly. And the latest source that I could find that you mentioned, and I might have missed one, was 2009. You also mentioned 2003 was for sort of the sequencing of the chimpanzee genome, but the chimpanzee genome was fully sequenced in 2005. Yeah. And that's what I cited there. That's one of my citations in 2005. Yes. I heard 2003. I could have been wrong. Yeah. Oh, yeah. That was the first I had to give two citations for that. So then what would you make of the additional work done on the triple comparison of the human genome, the bonobo genome, and the chimpanzee genome, which were laid out sequenced essentially and looked at side by side in 2012? Yeah, I would say that the regatane genome now, they're saying the ring, I don't know if you'd looked at that, that the rate there keeps on changing like the regatane genome were more related regatanes now. I'm really, I hate to call you on this praise, but that's simply not the case. I mean, I've kept very up to date on the literature with regard to genetic similarities between the great apes, because as someone who's very interested in not just human evolution, but the evolution of the orangutans who are so far out there in Asia, we have to essentially look at their genetic splitting times to see, OK, well, when did the orangutan end up over there in Asia? Why is it that most of the apes are are centered in Africa and the rest end up in Asia? And by the rest, I mean the orangutan if you want to include gibbons and signings in addition, you can. But the orangutan is by far and away the most distantly related ape when we when we're comparing humans and the other apes, humans, then bonobos, potentially chimpanzees, depending who you're talking about, they kind of go back and forth, then gorillas, then orangutans, then gibbons and then this is in science daily, June 18 2009. So this one, that's 2009. So you would hope that that would have been essentially mentioned in any of the recent genomic papers that that I've essentially been forced to read for my master's degree that constantly harp on these genomic comparisons because they have so much such a heavy implication on not only conservation, but also human evolution and the evolution of the other primates. So so why is no one mentioning this? I have literally in my entire life never heard a creationist, nor have I ever heard anybody in sort of the conventional science community suggest that humans are more closely related to orangutans than they are to chimpanzees. Yeah, I'm just saying like the belief keeps on shifting among evolutionists. There's nothing that's consistent with their viewpoints. And maybe you can address some of my points to what the common gen, the common genetic, the common genetics there with apes, cats, dogs. I mean, with cats, dogs in, you know, in the absolutely. I think it was it was Abyssinian cats. You mentioned rats or mice. Mice. Yeah, I believe it was those three. So because we're all mammals, now I don't know this for certain because I didn't have time to I wanted to again, give as much due diligence as I can during during your opening statement. But I would bet all the tea in China that those comparisons two things, one that those comparisons were based off of a shared mammal trait rather than a genomic comparison, because when I was listening to you speak, I didn't hear you mention that they were full genomic comparisons, then two, I would wager that if you included whatever if you included chimpanzees or macaques for that matter, a more distantly related primate in the metric in that sort of by using the metrics that you're using to get those comparisons with mice and avicinian cats and pigs, you would find that humans and chimps are more closely related because you're right. If you're doing a full genomic comparison and it does and you could prove that that mice are more closely related to humans than chimps, that would be that would be huge. That would absolutely and by and remember, I'm saying genomic comparisons, the full genome side by side coding base pairs. But the problem is, we've already compared a huge number of mammals to one another. And that does include, I don't know about avicinian cats, but certainly pigs and mice. And they're way down the list when you're doing coding base pair, full length of the genome comparison, humans and the rest, you end up with what I said previously, I would challenge you to provide a source that says otherwise, that is like past the 1970s. Yeah, I mean, the mouse genome was fully sequenced and it's genetic. So this would be genome.com. And that would be a source you can check out. So if it's 95% similar, and I even gave you the National Academy of Sciences is one of my citations that it's not 98 or 99, just not even close, even this is even from the National Academy of Sciences. I mean, they're pointing at the highest 95. So two things that I want to ask, well, first of all, 95 is the generally given number for genome comparison flat. But when we're talking about coding base pairs, that's when you climb up into that it's actually 98.8%. So you round up and you say, well, it's almost 99. But realistically, it's not quite there. Interestingly enough, when you when we sequenced the Neanderthal genome, we got 99.7. And you and I would be 99.9% similar with our entire genome. So it's interesting that we have this stepwise momentum in genetic relation. But I would challenge you to pull up that citation and see what it is that they're actually comparing, because there's a huge difference when between comparing, you know, segments of a genome, the entire thing, whether it's coding, whether it's not. And and I defer again to the most recent literature, which which concerning the three primary individuals we're talking about today, so humans and genus Pan, so bonobos and chimps, that's going to be that 2012 paper published in nature. Yeah, here's another point that I would like to maybe respond back to that with is the claim the genome is a blueprint for making us as a presumption. It's not it's not a proven science. For example, there are quadrillion neuro connections in the human brain, which is vastly different than the bits in the human genome, and also the the primate genome. So I would say that standard of trying to gain common commonality in our in our genes is probably faulty to begin with. So I would challenge that. I'm going to disagree for a primary reason. If you compare my genome to that of my mother's, it's going to be similar than if you compare your and my genome, correct? But I think what you're confusing, though, is like, because you're going to use bits and I mean, that's what they do. They do that they take up a portion of our sample size of the eight genome and the human genome. And I'm saying that's impossible to draw connections there because we have a we have a quadrillion neuro connections. So I get I get the idea. I'm sorry, I interrupted you continue. Oh, no, I will monologue.  So I mean, I, I'm going to opt it to you if you have something to bring in there. But I just think that there's I think that there's problems and and paradoxes. I don't think that evolutionists have of dress sufficiently anyway. And that's one of them is, like I was saying earlier, is the commonality or common genes with other animals. And even though you I'm sure you, like you said, my my dating might be my citation might be outdated. I saw how to check into that. But to me, that to me, it's a better argument for a common designer, not really a common ancestry. And I think that fits a better model. I would suggest, even if you wanted to defer to a common designer, rather than common ancestry, you still can't get around the fact that no matter how we classify organisms, unless you're appealing to the super natural, you can't leave humans about out of the ape, out of the ape family, out of the hominids. With regard to what I was saying, I'm not certain with what you're speaking of with like bits and things like that. What all all I'm saying is that we can tell there is definitively a relationship between the similarities between the genetics of two individuals and and how closely related they are, whether or not they they share a common ancestor. So if you like I said, if you compare mine and my mom, and then my grandma, you would find that my mom and I share a common ancestor in my grandma. Yeah, but that would be a human genome, though. But why why can you like this is I've asked standing for this and I've also asked kids, why and where do you draw that line? No one can answer that for me. It's all arbitrary. It's like, well, they're different species. Well, OK, well, then why can you say that all the apes belong to an ape kind? They're different species. Well, I would say probably the care I would say some of the things like when we have a lock and knee joint, I don't know if you really research into that, but we have where it's irreducible, the need, the knee joints, the lock and knee joint and apes just don't have that. And they're really quadrupeds and maybe for a few moments they can stand up upright apes. I agree. Yeah, they they will actually get severe issues with with arthritis and sort of degradation of of the the pelvic head and in the socket of the pelvis. If they spend too much time walking on two feet, they're also very flat footed. That's why it's so important that that when we look to the fossil record, we see this slow acquisition of traits that allow for bipedality. And what I mean when I say that is if you were to put like Lucy, I'll show you because I friends this up against a modern human in the race, she's going to lose. She is not an incredibly efficient Bible, but she would be to chimp if the chip were running on two legs. You see what I'm saying? Like they're biomechanics labs that do these kinds of studies based off of say the late Holy footprints or something like that. They look at how organism distributes its weight and then they put that into a simulation and then they try to figure out how it may have walked or what what a skeleton may have looked like when it was moving. So so there's this this. I totally agree.  Why would they? They're they're quadrupeds they're terrestrial. Most of them are terrestrial quadrupeds except for orangs which spend all their time in the trees. So I would agree with you on that. I would I would say look to the fossils and I think one other question I have for you is do you agree that primates are especially apes are far superior than us? And why is that the case if they are so far superior than us? Chris, this is an excellent question. I like this one a lot. So I had the utmost pleasure of getting to visit a tribe of hunter-gatherers back in 2015. They live in Tanzania. They're known as the Hadzabe. Incredibly low disease. They're the calluses on their feet are like as thick as you know, three cards or three like stacks of cards or whatever together like whatever. They're they're fit. They're really thick calluses on their feet because they walk around barefoot quite a bit. And so my question would essentially be well, OK, that's my my point would be rather it's quite interesting that they have such low disease rates and it's quite interesting that they have thick calluses on their feet and don't necessarily need to wear shoes. Why is that? And the answer is you and I are incredibly feeble when compared to individuals who are still subject to natural selection and have no access to modern medicines. Essentially, when someone in a hunter-gatherer tribe is sick, they die. And that means those genes don't get passed on. Let's say you have a propensity for asthma. That's not going to get passed on. I mean, you're right. You and I are incredibly weak compared to first of all, humans before modern or not modern medicine, humans before the agricultural revolution. But also, you know, we've we're basically so numerous and intense that we've null and voided natural selection. On the other hand, chips are constantly dying for random reasons. They do actually fall out of trees, interestingly enough, sometimes.  Jane Goodall, when she was back on Bay Stream, several decades ago, a huge polio outbreak hit her G group of chips and tons of them died. So if the right conditions are essentially met, they're more robust than us. But that doesn't mean they're invincible. Right. Often the same looks like we've lost humans have lost anything. Evolutionary process, if that is true, we've lost something. And usually even the strength and I think strength would be one of the most important features for us to carry on through the apes, if that was true, we would have to carry on the string. But also, I mean, even the fur of apes, too, that would that be something that we would probably want to carry on as well, because of the climate. I mean, there's the North if you go to the Frickin Minnesota in the winter time, you would probably need some of that eight code. So two, two, two, you know, some quick comments, one on the fur, we lost the fur, but we are the one of the best sweaters in the animal kingdom, which is why even if a chimp was on all fours, even you or I likely could outrun as far as distance goes to PNZ because we are incredible long distance runners. That's like we're good runners and we're good throwers. Those are the only two things that humans have physically over most of the animal kingdom. As far as strength goes, you ever seen a chimp trying to paint? They're really bad at it because they have no like small muscle dexterity. There's there's a difference between like slow and fast switch muscles. And essentially humans have a huge portion of not just our brains, but but our muscles themselves that are devoted to making very small precise movements that say might be useful for throwing a weapon or, you know, using a bow or something along those lines. Whereas an ape is three on a chimpanzee specifically is three times stronger than us. But if you if you ask them to to thread a needle, they'd never be able to do it. So it's it's all a trade off game. You see what I mean? So it's like, yeah, of course, it sucks that we're way weaker than apes, but at the other than then sort of the other apes, but at the same time, apes aren't, you know, the chimpanzees aren't the ones who who are able to to sort of scratch early cuneiform writings into a tablet, not because they're necessarily not intelligent enough, but also just because they physically can't do it. I got you.  And that's why we stay warmer. But how would we how what's your explanation for why we have that fat under our skin? Well, humans essentially actually did a video about this a while ago, because I was thinking the same thing. I was like, why are the why are humans the fattest apes?  So it's not it's not super difficult for them to keep the weight off. But in addition, they have a lot more of the type of the fat type known as brown adipose, whereas we have a fat type known as white adipose. If I remember correctly, white adipose is actually much more conducive for storing fat and using it in cognitive means essentially.  I see. Yeah, this is some interesting. So I mean, if you can provide some of that science, I'd love to look at sure, I would love to. I can absolutely email it to you or whatever. Yeah. Um, and here it's a couple other things I'd like me if you address according to like, they're just as part of the cosmos and they have the anthropology section there. They put they in their headline all all Australia Epithecus or dismisses an ancestor in and why are these things being published? Because I don't think you would hold to that, right? I was you would say that some of these Australia pickets. I'll show you pickets this or whatever it's hard. It actually is yeah. And I would say you would say they're valid and but say there's other sources out there done. I don't know if you would say cosmos is like a creationist or a conservative source. I would say it's more neutral. I mean, I don't see any type of bias there. And so why are these sources saying this type of stuff? And and I'll just add one other thing to BBC published two articles in in 2017 and 2019 stating there are no human ancestors been found. So these these seems to be paradoxes or inconsistencies in the theory. But I like to see how you would address that. Sure. I mean, it's kind of difficult because the situation with anthropology is every time you dig up a brand new skull, the question is, Oh, where does it go? And essentially the way that you determine that is by looking at the traits looking at the dating the rock that it was found in, if that is indeed the most conducive way to do it. I think occasionally you can do it in other means. But but generally speaking, radio metric dating and using isopron and things like that are going to help you get a decent range. But I think I do know that BBC article that you're talking about. And essentially the situation with with the human ancestors is very similar to basically all fossils we find it's a it's always going to be an incomplete picture. So it's actually impossible to say for certain, OK, well, Australopithecus Australopithecus aphorensis is indeed our direct relative. It may very well be the case, but it also could be that Australopithecus africanus is a more direct relative, or it could be that it's anemensis or it could be that there's a line that you can draw through line through all three. And these are answers that I'm not sure will will ever truly get. But the point of the matter is we can see a trend of human traits, emerge human traits, quote unquote, anatomically modern human traits emerging through geologic time in varying species. What this suggests is that these traits were being selected for basically wherever they popped up. And it tells us that even if aphorensis is in our direct relative, the one that was, even if we ever find it, is likely going to have a lot of similarities with it. And that's kind of just the way that it goes. But that's not to be that's, you know, that is a little preemptive. We could come up with some incredible science in the future that allows us to, to, you know, extract DNA from new finds or, or, you know, whatever, with regard to aphorensis in particular, I as far as I know, the consensus is still that aphorensis is likely, is likely in the direct line. Just based off of the timing, where it is, very particular, and, and the traits that it has. But the Arepithicus species, Kadaba and Ramanus, they, they hop on and off that train constantly. Because some people think that they go on a line towards this individual known as Kenyans of the Spadiops, which I don't know, it could be that that's a direct line with the humans too. But we're still figuring out essentially which, how to, how to put these specific branches in those locations. And the way we do that is, of course, with genetics of fascinating field notice paleogenetics, and, and also the physical traits and dating where they come from. But you're right, it's not a precise science and it's probably still going to change a lot. That's just the nature of the beast with this. It's very similar to certain aspects of medicine, you know, we're constantly having to, to change and adapt to, to new finds in medicine and of course, in paleontology and even in ecology, just because things are constantly changing. We live in a fluid world. Right. And but see, I think this is a good point, though, that yes, creationists have faith that God created. But see, the point is that evolutionists would have faith what they believe too. You there's, there's, there's going to be a certain point you're going to have to trust and have a little bit of credulity to believe your theory. And that's what I'm trying to, trying to point out to some of these internet evolutionists, they make it sound like evolution's ironclad. Well, you're, I mean, you just proven like, I think it's not ironclad as what people like to present it as. I think that's a valid point that I'm trying to make to people. But I get what you're saying, praise, but it's not that I'm saying evolution is an ironclad. I'm saying specific lineages are subject to change. As do we know organisms change over time? And at least if you're accepting of the physics that goes into radiometric dating, are we accepting that there is macroevolution through vast amounts of geologic time? I don't think you'll find a biologist who's going to disagree with you on that. But specific lineages, yeah, they're subject to change based off of finding new information, new, new fossil finds like we found in the leddie, I think, or five years ago, which was a totally fascinating and cool thing to be a part of. But yeah, that you look at that and you're like, okay, well, this changes things up. But that doesn't invalidate evolution. No, no, no, no. piece to the picture. Right. No, my point is, though, that it is not a settled science like it's, it's, we're going to put this into, you know, like a tautology or something like that. There's there's only like there's only a point where you can go so far into your beliefs. And it's and that's where it ends. And I say, as far as what I'm seeing right now, both sides are credulous on some of their beliefs. I'm saying creationists are too. But I would say also evolutionists are too. So I think that you're really I'm so sorry to interrupt, but I wanted to compliment you on something. I actually saw a conversation you had on Noah's flood at some point. But I'm with you. I like your take on that. And I think that you generally are open to new information. So I think I would I would I would though caution you just as sort of a when we're applying it to things that I would consider empirical. And I would say, well, in science you go with what's parsimonious. And when I say that, like, I'm just essentially saying like it's an Occam's razor type situation. And it's also does what does the data fit. So while I would, and I say this very hesitantly, I would agree on the fact that there is a lot of work to be done in all areas of science, I would certainly not limit it to evolution. And I wouldn't say that it's fake base. I would say we're working on we're working with hypotheses based off of the data that we currently have. And because this the nature of science is to change when new things come to light. That's that's proper practice to say, okay, well, yeah, it's going to be subject to change. Theories and theories tend to be ironclad in their concept. So in the concept of evolution, you'd say, okay, well, the tenants of evolution are indeed very valid. Again, you're not going to find a biologist that disagrees with that. But you are going to find so many different biologists, anthropologists, ecologists, whatever, that disagree on specifics, whether it's in evolution or ecology, or whatever field because people get really passionate about about their their specific study, right? I would I would say what's parsimonious about creationism? What can you look at and say, well, can you look at the data for say, like what you like what you've done with like a local flood, right? Like I would agree with you. I think that there was a large local flood in the Mesopotamian area. What is it like eight, eight to 12,000 years ago? Yeah, something like that. Yeah, I would agree that the parsimonious explanation for what why there are so many different cultures that have flood stories is one people tend to settle near rivers and river slide. But also I think that it's fair enough to say that that right now you can definitely make a case for a large localized flood in that region. But are you applying that to creation a six day creation in the same way? Oh, yeah, it's I'm not necessarily a six day creationist either. And I'm sure I mean, I've got a little backlash, but say I have like SFT he understands and also Ron Matt and some other ones, they understand my position. I'm when it comes to like life itself, I believe like human life and maybe some biological life that it's young. But when it comes to the age of the earth, I do believe that it's much older. And they understand that and some of your creationists understand that. But yeah, I'm not necessarily in that camp yet because I just don't see I have I have some things hermeneutically have to work out with that. But yeah, cool. Well, I think I think that's good practice.  Exactly, yeah. Yeah, I I I'm sorry. I've been monopolizing the conversation. I really know, I see it. But yeah, I have because you are you have the expertise.  I mean, because you're I want to hear you have to say when I give more respect to that on any cover, even if it was a Bible scholar, probably get, you know, lend them more time and let them talk more. But I'm just trying to pick your brain a couple things. And so one thing that I want to try to bust this misnomer, too, is I don't like the term creation, like can you prove creation? I think I think the proper one, the proper title or tag to give us would be more intelligent design. I think that's probably more acceptable to me. I think that's just a more proper, you know, Tyler ascribe that to a believer would if that believes in science that God created something I think intelligent design is probably more proper. I don't know.  But that's just my line of think, mind of thinking because Genesis is a creation doctrine. And I don't I don't like to mix those two. So I mean, that's just a side point, though. Sure. Sure. No, I mean, I'm glad I do want to know where you're coming from. That's right. I as someone who's very interested in primates and the like, I I'm certainly not an expert when it comes to theology. I do my best. But I yeah, that's on my field. So I try I try to defer to the to the experts on that one. Right, exactly. And that's I'm going to defer to you here, too, for some of this stuff. I wish I could say I was an expert on my theory yet. Yeah, sure. Um, we can talk about let's talk about language. I think that's a fascinating topic. I have one of my professors here in London works specifically with communication strategies and other primates. So I think you would be you would find very interesting some some various studies with relation to to a lot of our monkey species.  But it goes further than that because we also have like gelata baboons. They live in Ethiopia, they've got these big capes and they're sometimes known as bleeding heart baboons because they get these big blisters on their chests when they're when they're trying to attract a mate. It's very fascinating and very gross. But they have one of the dumbest communication systems out of the the ground monkeys, the baboons would cast the light. And yet a study was recently done on on sort of their chittering and chattering back and forth, their their local community, local communication style. And they found that it follows a linguistic law known as men's wrath law. So their most basal means of communicating with one another obeys a linguistic law that every single human language also obeys, which is super interesting. It suggests that, OK, well, the basis of language may be rooted further back in the previous thought. You can look to verbit monkeys, too. These guys are not geniuses. I mean, we're not talking about like super smart monkeys, but they they have different calls for different predators and they combine them with more calls that tell where the predator is coming from. So they can be like predator call for leopard ground so that everyone goes up into the trees, which is really interesting. I think that is very interesting. People people kind of sell them short. Like, obviously, they're not around speaking like us. And a recent study used to be thought that the reason was because they didn't have the mechanistic capability with our lips and tongue and teeth to make all the sounds. But a recent study actually showed that it's not just that. They also lack some of the brain. But, you know, obviously, there's a lot of brain power that goes into language and speaking of things that aren't there and theory of mind and all that kind of stuff. So I would agree with you. They're not on our level. Yeah, and I don't know if you heard my opening there that they hooked up and I think it was an ape to electrodes and they can make the ape talk. And but when you took the electrodes off, that didn't happen. So I think that's I'm going to look into that more too. But here I have actually a bigger question than I think I was forgot to ask you. You know, because in Neanderthals, it looks like the latest data shows that we're more closely related to primates than Neanderthals. And Neanderthals are like 90. I think in 97 percent or something like related. So to me, that seems to be a discrepancy there in the in the fossil record. I mean, as far as common ancestry is concerned, how would you address that? I mean, I would say I would be interested in seeing the study because I have not seen anything suggesting that the last numbers that I saw was that we've sequenced like I think the number is like five to seven full Neanderthal individuals genomes because obviously there's, you know, Neanderthals for around like 10,000 years ago. So we have their bones. It's not like mineralized bone as with many fossils. It's like bone bone. You can actually get DNA out of it and do your best.  And the number I saw was 99.7 percent similar to humans when you're doing that whole genomic comparison. I would be curious to see if perhaps they were comparing something more specific because I do know in the past there have been some there are a couple of interesting studies with the Neanderthal genome that show that humans share some traits with chimps still that Neanderthals had lost, which is quite interesting. We the current consensus is that we both split from Heidelbergensis and that they had a sort of out of Africa burst prior to humans, modern and totally modern humans. But I think that's a good question. I would be interested in seeing that source. Yeah. I'll have to send it out to you. Maybe some of those other things you can send me to be really. It would genuinely be my pleasure. I think it was really cool. Yeah, this is awesome. I love science and I love learning new things. So that's awesome. Oh, OK. Now, honestly, I will talk anybody zero off who will listen about this kind of stuff. So thank you, Praise, for honestly, you really let me monopolize. Oh, no, likewise. I enjoyed it. I defer to the people that know what they're talking about. I mean, they have the credentials and so I handed it out to you there. Oh, thank you, Praise. I that's a very complimentary credit. Oh, thanks for letting me know I had myself on mute. Sorry, folks, I was just I was just saying, folks, thanks for letting me know that. Appreciate your help. I was saying that there's nothing better than a praise impression. And Dr. Josh has the best one, which is something to the effect of that's been totally debunked. So. Totally debunked, man. Oh, my gosh. Really? Josh is good in general and impressions. I've heard some of his other ones. He does quite good with them. He is. Yeah, yeah. Yes, that's funny. We will jump right into it. So thanks so much, everybody, for your questions. We're going to try to get through as many as we can. And we have first up that nasty guy. Steven Steven is in the house. He says that's right. He says, quote, nothing evolves, language or animals, quote, unquote, praise. Praise. Is this what you've said in a recent debate? Yeah, I've there's some. I forgot that point, too, that if there's certain children in bullets that have never been taught language and they go over the age of 12, they never learn language. And I think that's one of my arguments that for language acquisition that it has to be taught. And that's that's one of my arguments anyway. Gotcha. By the way, Ness, speaking of Nephilim Free, Nephilim Free is in the house. Nephi, I mean, Nephilim. Yo, Ness, what's up, brother? Neph is in the live chat right now, folks. So, you know. Historic. We love him. He's, you know, the funny thing is, so yeah, Neph, when I like reached out to Neph and it was kind of like, you know, like in the movie, what was the movie with David Arquette and the pro wrestlers? Oh, man. And it had Oliver Platt, who played the king, Jimmy the king. And anyway, long story short, that movie, it's like when I reached out to Neph, it was over a year ago, it's like a year and a half ago. And I was like, hey, you're like an old school, like legendary debater on YouTube.  And he's like, well, yeah, sure. So it's a Neph, I'm working on that one. That's not a great impression, but thanks, Neph. We hope you're doing well. So that's up. It's OK, it's OK. I'm working on it. You know, it's like, it's terrific. Stephen Steen says, thanks for your super chat again, Stephen. See, he's, uh, Steen, he says, why does praise look like the lowest IQ Neanderthal tonight? Oh, man, Stephen. So that's Stephen's very good. He's a, he's a good sport. He's, uh, making fun of his own photo. For those of you who don't know, that's Stephen Steen. That is Stephen. It is. That is, that's a rare self-roast. You don't get those too many often. We like that. Very good self-deprecating sense of humor. And next up, let's see. Oh, snap. Sassy Stephen says, wow, praise, congrats on your easy win. Erika, are you going to take that crap? Oh, shot's fired. There's nothing I can say. I'm, I'm helpless to that kind of, that kind of trash talking. We can always say about Stephen. Beta. Okay. Andrew Handelsman, thanks for your super chat. He says, hi, James. Glad to see you, Andrew. Hope you're well. Appreciate all your help here at the channel, Vina Ma, and all that good stuff. Chaz Elliott, thanks for your super chat. Says, Erika's mastery of anthro knowledge and charming delivery made this a great anthro refresher. Praise had great questions. Thanks, James, Erika, and praise. Very sweet compliment. I really appreciate it. I let someone get something of listening to me talk in a high-pitched, nasally voice for minutes at a time. That's funny. People love listening to you, Erika. They just, it's terrific. And that's, that was a great super chat. That should be like at a Hallmark card. That was great. That's like, there is, that is zero vitriol to anybody. Very nice. Touche. Ben Riley, thanks for your super chat. Who says, survival of the fittest isn't the strongest, nor the most intelligent that survives. But whatever species is most able to adapt to change in its environment, praise, praise, you agree? Oh, that's it. I don't know as far as how the evolutionist would go because I think there's different opinions on that. Some of them say fitness is more important. Some of them said strength. Like Dawkins has made it clear that self is gene. Like he would say if more is like strength. I think it differs in between evolutionists. I mean, that's one of the issues I have with evolution that's not really settled. There's a lot of stuff going on in there. Hmm, very fascinating. Thanks for sharing that praise. And set a plug in. That was embarrassing. We almost lost it. So tonight's been a good stream. We've had like the last two were rough. One, it was my fault. My internet connection was just going carplunge. And then Jungle Jargon. I have to call him out. Jungle, we love you. I was just teasing you. I caught the tail end of that. I was getting ready. I was like, oh man, I'm 10 minutes late, but I'll still be able to catch some of it. And then I was like, wait a second. Yeah, Jungle Jargon. It was like he was doing his debate while he was on like a jog and like doing sprints. And we're like, do you really? We can't hear you. Like, why? So I made that part up. But it was still, his connection was dropping. Same thing. Dildo Beggins. Dildo Beggins, thanks for your super chat. They say, come on, praise. Understanding evolution isn't hard. Oh, that's why like probably more than 50% of them disagree with each other. And they have different viewpoints. And they're unsettled on things. And I mean, I think that's part of science. And I understand that. But it's not as easy as what he was trying to claim. But if that was trolling, that's a good troll comment. That's funny. We appreciate that. Run off the rage with some wind sprints, Grace. Dildo, yeah. Let me just see. Am I still muted? People, that's not a funny joke to tell me I'm muted when I'm not. Are they trolling you now? Oldest joke in the book. OK, people, let's see. I can't see how far back that was. And Annagin's in the chat. I'm lost. But Timothy Bryce, thanks for your super chat. Both of your super chats will definitely, we're going to catch up. We're going to get to those really quick. I'm just trying to catch up with these because I've gotten behind. Landon Freeman in Subtracted. Promise we're going to get to your super chats as well. Thanks for those. And next one up in line, Rapture Countdown. Thanks for your super chat. They say Erika in all caps. What happened to the hybrids? No proof. The hybrids? Now, that's an interesting question. I'm wondering specifically what we're speaking about here. Are they asking about, because there's a couple of different routes that could go. The hybrid question could be with regard to that one total crackpot Russian scientist who tried to hybridize humans and orangutans and chimpanzees, I believe. But it also could be a reference to the fact that it was recently proposed that the hybridization that occurred between the common ancestor of humans and chimps happened from like seven million, like they split at seven million years. And then they could continue to hybridize for like four-ish million years, which is really interesting. I haven't actually, I confess, I haven't read the paper. So I don't know precisely how they get that. But either way, great question? Kind of a question? Good burn? I don't know. I'm not sure what that was. It gave me an excuse to talk about the human z's though. So always a fun topic. Sick burn. Landon Freeman, thanks for your super chat. He says, Erika, what would make you doubt universal ancestry? Oh man, that's a good question. I think with regard to universal common ancestry, it would be very interesting if we found a life form on this planet, even as simple as like an archaeobacteria with a completely different means of coding its version of RNA and DNA. Because that would suggest two emergent, two periods of life emerging. It wouldn't make me doubt evolution because evolution obviously isn't the same thing as ABO Genesis. But that would be wild. Can you imagine? I think I have no idea how the science of the community would react to that. That would be insane. Gotcha, thanks so much. And thanks as well. Let's see here. Subtracted, thanks for your super chat. They said, hey, praise. Can you explain endogenous retroviruses and retro transposins found in mammalian placentas? Sure, yeah. So ERVs have been shown to be functional. That's number one. And this has been proven with what they call apoptosis, to look into that. Similar ERVs have been found in unrelated organisms. Claiming ERVs are evidence of evolution without knowing their origin is an argument from ignorance. And studies have been showing ERVs can benefit organisms in a variety of intelligent ways. So that's how we respond to that. I would say, though, praise, as far as I know, most still have no function. I read up on that before my last conversation was standing. And as far as I know, some do, for sure. But the majority are still functionless. I think they're still looking, but I'm not quite sure. It would just be an encode, right? Is this what you guys are talking about? We did talk about an encode, but this was with regard to endogenous retroviruses. OK. Yeah, I'll have to look up some of those sources later on. Appreciate that. And next up, appreciate your super chat from InsectFacet. They say, Erica, why full genome comparison? Why not just, EG, why not just, for example, reciprocal blast the orthologs? I think that's almost, though, not a great way to look at it. I mean, I go with full genome comparison just because I think it's a great way of explaining it. That doesn't necessarily mean that you can't, nor that you shouldn't, compare other aspects of the genetics between similarities and differences between any two organisms. I do think, though, I would bet I would put some money on this, that regardless of how you're comparing it, humans are likely going to come out most similar to one, all of the primates, and also two to genus Pan, in particular. I think that's typically what we're seeing. I think that follows the trend. I could be wrong. I mean, there's always oddball cases, but I don't know of any. So that's me creating a, that's my evolutionary rescue device, till standing then. He loves that phrase. Gosh, yeah, thank you very much. Timothy Bryce, thanks for your super chat. Wow, we've got a lot for Erica tonight. This is nice, usually. I never get this many super chats. I'm so excited. They asked, Erica wanted to say, I recently saw you versus Hovind. I loved it. I want to see more of you here. We'll rewatch this. Oh, that's so sweet. Thank you. I'm always glad to come on and talk about this kind of stuff. Honestly, I know they're technically debates, but I honestly see them as fun discussions. And I've never had a bad experience with anybody here on modern day debate. So it's a great time tonight. I really did. Not even praise. Yeah, me too. Thanks. By the way, Miguel in the live chat, thanks so much. The movie I was talking about, that was like symbolic of inviting Nephilim Free on here, was ready to rumble with David Arquette and Oliver Platt. Jimmy the King. Yes, yes, yes. And Diamond Dallas Page and other superstars from the WCW. So yes, that's what it was like when I asked Nephilim Free. It was like asking Jimmy the King to come out of retirement. It was like asking the gladiator to come out of retirement to fight Maximus. OK. Oh my god. That's a deal. You got a double there. You got two references in one. He's like the Chuck Norris of creationism. Me or now? OK, now, OK. I just want to be called Chuck Norris. But all right, Timothy Bryce, thanks for your super chat. They said, thanks to you, James, for doing this. That's really nice of you, Timothy. It is my pleasure. I was just telling the speakers, oh, today was a rough day. So yeah, long story short. It was a long, long rough day. I'm exhausted. But when I come here, I'm like uplifted and pumped. It is honestly so much fun for me. So thanks so much. I'm glad you're here, Timothy. Philip, thanks for your super chat. He says, question for praise. Are there falsifiable predictions made by intelligent design that could not be made by evolution? Yeah, I would say with intelligent design. And there's a couple of them. I would say irreducible complexity. I would say that if you can show that there are certain features or certain parts of the genome that are irreducible, that cannot happen through a step-by-step process. And I would say that would be distinct or exclusive only to intelligent design. Gotcha, thanks so much. Next up, appreciate your super chat from, oh gosh, Steven Seen. I have to read these. Says, why is James so pretty? That's just weird, OK? Thanks for that. Nasty guy. Just, you know, I always tell him, Steven, you have a wife and kids. OK, Dildo Baggins. Thanks for your super chat. I can't help it. It's almost as bad as general ball sack.  That's true. I will definitely let her know you said that. We miss her dearly. I don't know. I miss her dearly. She asks great questions, too. She does ask good questions. She's fun. But Dildo Baggins asks, James, did you screen these debaters like Duncan Atheism asked? I did not. If anybody was there that night, Duncan, who was it? I think it was, Florida man came on, and he totally trolled Duncan Atheism. And Duncan Atheism was pissed at me. Like, he basically said it was my fault, because I have to screen the debaters, which is kind of true. I should do. I should screen them, because once in a while we get a surprise. But I enjoyed that very much, actually. Every time, if you haven't seen that individuals watching, you should just for James's reactions exclusively. That was like sometimes. I just love it's there's something so funny. And I know maybe it sounds like you should feel bad for this. But there's something like when that sometimes it's like the things that people get mad about, like really mad. Like sometimes it's flat earth. It could be all sorts of stuff where, like, they get so mad.  And it was kind of like Duncan, like you're playing like right into his hand. Like he wants you to get mad. And it just, yeah. He would like toss. He would like start trying to roast James. And then James couldn't hold back his laughter. He's like, we've got to move on. Yes, that's right. Yeah. Duncan was giving me the business. But I'm excited he'll be back this coming Wednesday. So we have got a. Kings are patched up. That's yes. The cars in the house. The boys are back in town. That's right. I am pumped though, you guys. So that's, we've got a few more questions we're going to definitely ask really quick. But I am first, let me read some of those. I've been just kind of chatting so much. Travis, do you appreciate your question? Asks question for praise. Do you think the question of evolution is theologically significant? Since some of the most prominent evolutionary biologists are Christians like Francis Collins. That's a great question. And, you know, I can't, I don't think I have a robust theological argument against evolution being biblical. I don't, I can't think of any right now. So I say that is not an issue to salvation. So I was thinking, yes, the evolutionists are absolutely Christians. And yeah, Francis Collins is a great, a great model for Christianity. I mean, he's a wonderful scientific mind. So yeah, I have to say, yes, they are part of Christianity. I mean, they're not, you can't cut them. They're part of salvation, absolutely. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Appreciate that. And two, two, three, Mr. Awesome. Thanks for your super chat.  That could be true. I always don't tell Duncan this. I know somebody's going to tell him, but it's so fun to like let the debate venture into the like realm of where it's like, it's just as much as he'll put up with it. Like you can still stay. No, he's usually, that was like the only time he got really mad, but it's just- It was- James, what are you doing, James? Yes, it was, yeah, it's a, we love him. Funny guy. There's a lot of dunking going on in that. Let's put it that way. Yes, there was. Ches Elliott, thanks for your super chat, says Erika, favorite recent anthro discovery or fact. I'd love to hear it. Oh man. Oh man. So many quotes. That's a dangerous question to ask me, my friend. Anthropologically, it's really hard to beat when there was a find, it was within the past year, I believe, where they actually finally found a jawbone for Denisovans, but you can't beat Rising Star Cave because they're still pulling homonoledis, multiple homonoledis, homonoledii. They're pulling multiple individuals still out of that cave with Burger and Company, which is really cool, but you should also look into a paper that was published by someone who actually graduated from my master's program who did a study on baboon mothers who actually carried their young around for up to 10 days, and they find that the longer they carry the infant, or sorry, very key, very key factor here, the young has died, the individual, the infant has died, and they carry their dead infants around for up to 10 days, and they actually measured it with stress levels, so like cortisol, and they found out that it's a coping mechanism. So they carry, their stress is much lower if they carry this deceased infant around and kind of deal with the grief, so to speak, than if it's immediately taken from them by say a predator or something along those lines. And then eventually they just leave it behind. So it's weird, it's a strange situation, it brings to mind, you know, you have to refrain from anthropomorphizing, but it brings some interesting analogs to mind. So check out those three things, they're all really cool. Wow, that is fascinating. My heart goes out to those primates, that's sad. It's really sad, they got pictures, so don't look at the pictures if your heart is soft like mine is. That's sweet, well, that was, definitely appreciate you updating us on the current research, and that was an excellent super chat, so thanks so much for that. Mary, that was a great question. And thanks so much for your super chat from Timothy Bryce, who says, thanks to Praise2, I really enjoy his channel. Wow, you got a fan out there, Praise. Oh man, that is an awesome, I appreciate you saying that. Can I say something juicy, something interesting? Ooh. Praise, I'm putting you on the spot, okay, so. If you go to Praise's channel, Praise has 11,000 subscribers, like the size of a small town, that's how many subscribers he has. I actually saw that, I was impressed, I was like, oh my gosh.  These are real, Praise had a video 10 years ago that went viral and like half of planet earth watched it. And now like, and so he got like 11,000, but do you still have that video? Cause I was looking at it today and I was like, does Praise still have the viral video? Yeah, it's there, yeah. Very nice, that's a goal, that's going viral is a goal. As long as it's something cool, so it's like, you know. That's super interesting. So I just got to kick out of that one. I first thought, I think I even like standing for truth is like, just praise really have 11,000 subscribers. It's not real. Tyler said the same thing as question again. Praise, he had to buy that. Skyler, that sounds like if that's funny. Next up, let's see. Thanks for your super chat. Basic bro, appreciate it. They said, when did Bill Burr start debating evolution? Oh, that's so true. Steven Steen totally looks like Bill Burr. Oh my God. Whoa, it's like an uncanny resemblance, it's striking. Now I'll never unsee it. I can't see the avatars at this exact moment. So when I first heard that, I was like, wait, is he really? Wait, was it Bill Burr? That would be awesome. We'll try to get him. That would be crazy. Johnny Miller, thanks for your super chat. They said, Erica's thoughts on the paper published four days ago on Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA. Yes. They wanna know your thoughts on it. I believe, oh man, things have been a little, if it came out four days ago, it's possible I have not read it because I've been very frantically trying to get maybe, probably not gonna happen now. I might have to postpone my data collection probably because of the virus. But if this is the one about the offspring that was sort of a hybrid between Denisovans and Neanderthals, I know there was one quite some time ago, so it probably isn't, but I can give word on that, which is that it's very interesting and it lends quite a bit of credence to this idea of species divergence times and species speciation times, because it essentially tells us that there is a lot of interbreeding going on a lot longer for a lot longer than you would probably be comfortable being aware of, particularly within the human, the human generous of genus Homo. And that's because humans are just weird. I mean, we have a lot of weird stuff going on. And I think that to suggest that other members of our genus were probably not equally as weird in their own aspects and that maybe you had some kind of Romeo and Juliet thing going on with a young Denisovan maiden and the Neanderthal warrior and then they fall in love and produce offspring. I love the tail, I love the idea of it, so I'm just telling myself that's what happened. That's very romantic. Very romantic. Appreciate that. And Timothy Bryce, thanks for your super chat again. They said, Bill Burl, I fell out. It's funny because it's true. It is true, holy smokes. That's crazy. We might as well just put Bill Burl there, like the name. So thanks for that. Thank you for running again now. Yes, that's true. Travis, let's see. I think did we ask Travis? Yeah, we did. That was about Francis Collins. Ken McCracken, thanks for your question. Asked, maybe do like one or two more questions and then we gotta go. And thanks so much. They asked, why did intelligent Homo sapiens slash humans live in caves for 300,000 years never plant crops or make a simple shack for 300,000 years? I'm assuming that's for me. So first I'll say they weren't necessarily just living in caves. There are some really, really cool studies done actually with relation to a Canid domestication that shows that many of the members of Homo sapiens that were wandering around for those 300,000 years were essentially carrying their homes with them. They were nomadic because they were following a lot of the game of that day, be it mammoths or woolly rhinos or just your classic ungulate of the field that they're chasing around. So no, not necessarily living in caves. As for why they didn't agriculturalize faster the agricultural revolution, I would recommend the book sapiens which really goes over this idea of moving from hunter-gatherer to being agriculturally based and being sedentary. And they make the case, the author makes the case and I'm not gonna say his last name because I'm gonna butcher it. That actually the agricultural revolution while great in the long run for us would have been really, really tough for several thousand years right off the bat because you're defending your homestead from people who might just encroach and be like, oh cool, you're building crops now they're mine as well as the risk of the crops failing rather than following around a surefire food source. And there's actually quite a bit to suggest just based off of the skeletons that we have that the labor was a lot tougher for those who were first entering into the agricultural phase. So it wouldn't surprise me and this is total speculation. It wouldn't surprise me if there were maybe a couple of different agricultural revolutions quote unquote and a couple of times people were just like this sucks like hunter-gathering was way easier and way more fun and less people were dying. So let's just stick to that. But who knows, we don't know for the time being obviously eventually someone stuck it out for long enough that it caught on and they figured out how to plant crops which is great for us because now we get to talk to each other over computers and we're not out chasing man that's so. That's cool. Touche. And thanks so much. Dildo Baggins strikes again. They say, where is all the toilet paper and hand soap gone? I haven't been to the store for like a week. So is anybody- It's so bad. Really? It's so bad. It's bad here. Wow. In the UK it's a mess. I can't speak in London it's terrible. I've got like, I had incidentally bought one of the bulk toilet papers before this virus hit so I'm set for now but it's only a matter of time and then you're like, where am I gonna get it from? Cause people are panic buying, it's crazy.  That's so true and let's see. Yeah, it's crazy. So at my university and Erica you had already mentioned that this is it sounds like it's the same there. We are having all of our classes so that the classes I'm teaching are now moved online. So it's, which is why like I've mentioned it before is like I'm exhausted, I'm dead. It's been a huge crazy week since I think they announced it Wednesday and then the students are like freaking out. So it's been crazy. I can't even imagine there. I have a bunch of colleagues that have already left for their field projects and the university who told them they would cover their insurance, just who were giving them insurance so that if you're abroad and whatever, South Africa and you break a bone then the university will cover it. But because of COVID-19 and how quickly it's spreading they sent out an email to everybody who was already abroad and was like, sorry, you have to come back cause we're not gonna cover you anymore. So everyone's basically having to field work wise at least at my university go through an interruption period and be like, okay, like I guess we're gonna sit around for a month and a half until we can actually get out to our field sites. It's awful for more reasons than that obviously that's nothing compared to what some people are going through but still sucks. Yeah, definitely. So we, it's kind of it'll be, I wonder how long it'll last in terms of this virus being passed around. My friend, one of my colleagues is from Italy. So she has friends in Northern Italy and Milan and those areas that have really been hit hard. And she brought something up to me the other day that I was, I found terrifying and cause it hadn't even occurred to me. And she was like, the whole pandemic thing doesn't end when we get the virus under control cause the damage it's done is so extensive we could stop it tomorrow when it would take months for the globe to recover economically and with the healthcare system and all of that. And I was like, oh Lord, we got to strap in. That's wild touche. I hadn't thought of that. Yeah, me either.  No, it's all right. I just spotted Nephilim free, talking smack in the live chat. He says to somebody in the live chat, he says, debate me and I'll answer your question. So that would be fun. You're always welcome, Neve. We love you, Neve. I just, let's see. Side Gart, thanks for your super chat. Just fired it in, said great job, Erika. Your knowledge is only surpassed by your patience. Oh my God, Psy. Psy, you are a personal cool guy idol of mine as far as science YouTube goes amongst the pantheon of cool science YouTubers. You're definitely in my face. So that means a lot coming from you. Really pleasant guy. He's got a good number of debates with Psy. So if you would like to see Dr. Gart's debates, those are on the channel here. And his link is in the description of those. So with that, folks, thanks so much for your questions. We are going to wrap it up, let Erika get some sleep over there in London. And so- Can I propose something real quick? What do you got, praise? Tomorrow at SFT channel, Erika is gonna go against Bill Morgan. So I recommend anyone come out- Double feature. Nice. That's cool. We can put that debate in the description so that way it's convenient for people to want to check that out. Praise, you weren't supposed to tell James that I was cheating on modern databases. It's standing for truth. He's a busy man. Is it, oh wait, you're debating Bill Morgan. But yeah, so is standing for truth going to be the moderator? Yes, he's moderating. And I believe Gap of Dino is also moderating, which is gonna be great. We're gonna all have an awesome time. Yeah, it will be. That's really cool. That's awesome. I'm excited for it. Oh, I see already. Oh, wait, no, hold on, this is... Oh, they just, they put out a trailer for it.  When you had your own trailer for your debates, I mean, that's, now we're talking. Listen, you know, I saw that and I was starstruck. I was like, have I peaked? Is this it? That's awesome. Really cool. I've reached the top. It doesn't get any better than this. Let's see, okay, well, standing for truth doesn't have the event page up for it, but I'm gonna put, let's see. Well, I'll put the trailer. I'll link the trailer for the debate. And then if you wanna see this debate, standing for truth always rips. He's a showman, he's got the showman's chip to boot. I love that he rips footage out of like old like Braveheart movies and stuff and then superimposes the debaters on their bodies. Yeah, so that's pretty cool, but yes. Yes, I... He's got for lack of creativity, that is for sure. That's true. So that's linked in the description, folks. Let's see here. I'm putting, standing for truth's debate with Erica and Bill Morgan. Erica and Bill Morgan here. Okay, they'll figure it out. That's the trailer. They have to watch the trailer first. So thanks, folks, for hanging out with us. And once again, both of our speakers are linked in the description so that you can check out more if you're like, hmm, I want that. I wanna hear more. So thanks so much for being here with us, Erica and praise. I gotta go see that viral praise video now. You do, definitely. That's number one on my agenda. Everyone in North America watched it twice. It was a big one, so that was pretty huge. Good job, praise. Word up. Yes, but yeah, so that's cool. But yes, thanks so much, folks. Take care, have a great night. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable.


To number 2, seed Diego Schwarzmann ousted Andy Moray to reach the quarter-finals of the European Open, while Lloyd Harris and Martin Fuchsowicz also won their matches, setting up a clash in the next round. Moray, who came on as a wild card, gave the 29-year-old a battle and nearly forced the third set by taking the second to a tie-break before finally crashing out, losing 6-4-7-6. The match between the Scots and the Argentine was a long time common, as the two had never faced each other despite more than a decade of overlap in their successful careers.