What Is the Definition of Evolution?

What Is the Definition of Evolution?


Hey welcome to modern day hysteria thanks so much for coming over tonight I am stoked we have got bright minds here it’s gonna be a blast when we talk about basically evolution more broadly and I’m going to kick it off just going right down the list by first asking mr Christopher Boyer to talk about his YouTube channel what he’s doing over there Want to encourage you even if you don’t agree with any of the people that are speaking tonight Please go check out their channel then you at least have the best representation of their views that you’re going to get straight from them, so Christopher Boyer thanks for coming on please tell us what you’ve been doing over your channel yeah sure first off thanks for having me James I appreciate it my name is Chris Boyer you can find me on youtube just by typing in my name Chris Boyer it’s pretty easy to find me on there but my channel is pretty much aimed at defending Christianity Which is also known as Christian apologetics, so my content really focuses on that so if you have any interest in You know videos or content along those lines you know feel free to stop by and check it out Rad thanks so much next we have another Christopher Christopher I’m stoked to have you back I Specifically invited Christopher because we had a conversation just a few a couple nights ago and he impressed me so much with this discussion on the evolutionary debunking arguments I was like oh We gotta have him back on and this is I think he’ll give his case well tonight So Christopher if you want to share what is going on at your channel if I remember it’s biblical But the history skeptics the history skeptics thanks so much so what’s going on right now is I just released a video going over the composition and theories on how the book of Job was formed I’ve also tomorrow I will be uploading with my friend Brian another one of our atheist Bible reading commentaries and After that I’m mostly just going to be floating around other channels next week I’ll be on Milwaukee atheists awesome glad you’re here and last but not least we have Steve McCray I’m very excited to have you Steve if you want to share about what’s going on at your channel whether it be the great debate community or Steve McRae Incorporated I’m incorporated now at the big time What you know what we might actually have a LLC but that’s a long story um? I’m Steve McRae I’m from the non sequitur show along with my partner Kyle we do debates discussions dumpster fires We specialize on dumpster fires if you want to see the worst of the worst and things you will never see anywhere else and that people try to argue things you’ll never hear anywhere else come to see the non-sequitur show and I also have my own channel Steve McRae where I kind of do after shows and just kind of you know impromptu hangouts and I also have a great debate community channel which It’s got a defunct now but it’s still there that’s some pretty decent videos on it has one with our raw people go check out but yeah thanks for being here, man thanks for him and when he says his partner Kyle he means his partner yes That’s the case because yes people question my sexuality often Have you here absolutely? so I’m stoked I gotta just open it was something that I thought was I would have to say I was impressed I have to give credit where it’s due is that on Twitter Steve McRae You were willing to kick against the goads And by that I need a discussion on the definition of atheism came up in Cebu create you were willing to say no No the the academic definition is scholarly definition from those people who specialize in this topic the most philosophers would be that atheism is an explicit rejection of God’s existence not just a lack of belief and I was first of all I mean they’re just so few atheists that take that position I don’t know why that is because Steve that’s the thing. I’ve been saying this I’ve been roughly the same argument although you have way more sources than I do to back it up which is impressive is that I’ve been saying if we’re gonna go with any definition why not go with the scholarly definition and Steve McRae you basically shared like I don’t know a dozen sources from scholars not just this but atheist philosophers who are saying this is ithi isms the denial of God’s existence so Steve thanks for being so Willing to go against the grain even if you’re disagreeing with your own peeves well first of all I mean I’m agnostic so I don’t have allegiance to theist or atheist right I mean I I but it but it’s the truth right it’s a fact if people purport that they’re gonna have these conversations and that They’re gonna ignore what the facts are then are they really having a conversation so I mean it is the fact Chris knows it anybody who ever goes and looks into this stuff it’s the way it is I am well source because I am well researched on it and plus not only of my sources Just sources. I’ve actually spoken to most of my sources sources personally right. I’ve had many of them on my channel people that have written peer review papers and so yeah I mean I think it’s it’s it’s one of those things that if people want to argue against that I think they’re just basically tilting at windmills at this point I don’t know what else to be said on it and I mean you’re exactly right and what you said it is the philosophical definition what you gonna do yeah and Going Christopher do you have something I? was just going to say at this point I could I agree with Steve and now I just provide him with fodder on line Oh oh hey there’s a guy it doesn’t think that that’s the definition a definition of atheism Steve dumpster fire go well I want to clarify first two things Only takes 30 seconds one I realize this cloak or definitions you want to use those be my guest There’s arguments to be had against them I’m not arguing that you can’t be an atheist by colloquial definition never have never will and the other thing is I want apologize to Chris because in the group that I had posted this video to I had told them I’m going into this blind I didn’t know who you were I remember who you are and now You know we’ve barely I mean we didn’t have much of a conversation before but I have to like clarify that because I do like to be factual and so I am NOT going as I’m blind as I thought I was Although I still have no idea what the hell. I’m doing here fair enough yeah, okay good sounds good uh I agree It’s basically another day on the non-sequitur show what can go wrong nice so what I do want to ask if I can I mean I think it’s pretty clear you don’t film defending Christianity for the record I didn’t say it but yeah I am a Christian theist obviously Steve you said you’re agnostic I know James you’re a Christian theist and Christopher I I don’t know where you where you fall also on the agnostic spectrum, okay? sounds good all right so discussing evolution we agreed beforehand we were not going to debate this Is first we wanted to be more of a discussion so we’re trying to bring new ideas to the table and second of all in addition to it not being a debate more of a discussion We also were not going to debate the whether or not evolution actually happened in the sense of single-celled organisms bringing about the diversity of life we have today instead where I suggested at least one of the things we talked about and I’m open to other ideas but I can’t help it. I’ve been obsessed with the evolutionary debunking arguments of objective morality and I’m willing to summarize it unless somebody else has a summary that they think would maybe, even be clearer than mine otherwise I’ll let her rip really quick and try to give like a one-minute explanation Cool I’ll go for it so theists like Chris Boyer and I see look at Chris Boyer over there proud We would be happy to use the moral argument and I mean at least I would I think you would Chris maybe yeah, absolutely excellent so The skeptic might say, okay great if you want to use this moral argument. I’ve got a problem because I agree with you that it seems to be you know it seems inside here my moral experience of the world Seems to indicate that there is something deeper To the world in that in other words that there seems to be this like moral essence to some things in the world something seem right or wrong and they might say but you know what Maybe it’s not that my cognitive faculties are tracking these objective moral values maybe it’s just that I Evolve in such a way as to think that these particular behaviors that help pass on genes or at least increase the probability that those particular behaviors I think you’re right or wrong because Had I not I would not have been as likely to pass on my genes so for example an obvious one with most of us think we have a feeling that suicide is immoral and if we do that kind of makes sense because if you didn’t have that feeling that would be one less thing keeping you from killing yourself and not being able to pass your genes off right so that’s the most obvious example another one might be I have a feeling that murder killing another person unjustified Lee would be wrong it has this moral essence this I ought not do it and if I did do it in the tribal days odds are good I’m gonna get killed Because somebody’s gonna take vengeance and I’m gonna be killed or cast out of the other tribe so now I can’t pass on my genes So the idea is a skeptic might say the moral perceptions we think we’re experiencing aren’t just explained by the possibility that we’re actually tracking these objective moral truths out there it might just be Easily explained by evolution namely that we wouldn’t have passed our genes on or at least the the odds would have been much smaller had we not had these alleged moral perceptions of the world and in that case it undermines the moral argument because the moral argument is trying to say hey Agree with me we have these moral perceptions we you know we have a good reason to think there’s objective morality and Of course the person arguing for the moral argument would say you know they they try to take that and also reason from that as well as with another premise to God’s existence now that’s a we’re not going to cover that but we’re covering the first part maybe evolution can explain our moral experiences of the world and in that case it seems like we maybe shouldn’t trust them as much as we do with regard to whether or not they’re actually picking up on objective moral truths up there so hopefully I haven’t beaten it to too much, okay uh if I could just like jump right and for a minute there’s a lot to unpack there I I don’t even know where to begin because there’s just so many things that I’m not saying that you have an incorrect perspective of these things but I think you’re throwing a lot of things in the blender and just kind of turning it on and the reason I say that is if you’re gonna have these conversations to my opinion you first got to really kind of narrow down what people mean by objective morality because I think people really do confuse meta ethics with normative ethics and and just because and I know you have a background philosophy So please let me know if you agree and disagree with me on this when people talk about objective morality all that saying is that they believe that a moral fact is something that’s not contingent upon a crime as opposed to a subjectivist it doesn’t mean anything else other than that there could be an objective moral framework that’s obviously the rules of chess are objective right that does require a mind of God right And even always comes from a mind something created those rules it’s still objectively the case so objective morality Is just that the the the perspective of the individual is that yes moral facts exist just like a subjectivist would say moral facts exist? but one is saying that it’s contingent upon human minds one say it’s not contingent upon human minds and I think the discussion really needs to be more on Do we have normative ethics from evolution I don’t think objective morality and subjective morality have anything to do with evolution to be honest why would they where we get our normativity from as in what we would do in a given situation that’s what I think was something that would become from evolutionary history right that’s more what I what I was arguing last time could I I didn’t think that you could really derive a moral framework from it yeah from evolution it more just explains why we behave the way we behave right I mean granted Harris will take the objective approach and say there’s an objective moral framework from arms and benefits which would come from an evolutionary thing that’s a framework and I get that but if we could dive into the the concept if you’re talking about modern day and then maybe Chris can chime in if you were to suggest that objective morality requires a deity of some kind because clearly it doesn’t you hope you agreed that because Sam Harris posited objective morality and and Richard carrier affirms it he agrees with it but the problem with positing a deity is that it only gets you to ethical subjectivism and Mike in my opinion right because it’s contingent upon his beliefs and even it’s the case that is subjective why, how does that really affect our normativity and and I don’t know how that has any effect on evolution I mean your you can pause it all you want that it requires a deity but it’s very similar to the argument from contingency just by positing a deity just To say the argument one contingency satisfies the principle of sufficient reason doesn’t actually Supposed efficient reason or at least satisfy it so I’m asking you one of you gentlemen Tell me why one you think objective morality Is the case by the way I’m not an objective morality person I’m I don’t deny it it can possibly exist I’m fine with it I meant more annihilist I’m an air theory board person but Why, do you think objective morality exists and if it does how does that metaphysically necessitate the need for Dede? Yeah, I mean I’m gonna turn it over to Chris in a sec I just want to make sure that I clear my clear my own initial explanation because I think I might have accidentally led some astray my concern was more about whether or not So our Sharon Street is a philosopher she’s at NYU and she’s given these evolutionary debunking arguments trying to argue that evolution gives this reason for you could say doubting our moral perceptions of the world namely so I Mean we’re in the same boat Steve that I’m trying to say that she might have a good sound argument against the moral argument? Namely, she might be saying hey we don’t have a good reason to believe in objective moral truths though the whole idea of like Theoretically granting we had objective morality do we get a God out of that that’s like a different issue that I wasn’t planning on going into because we talked about discussing evolution tonight but if you guys want to I’m open to it I just want to see if you were if you were impressed by the debunking arguments but hopefully we’ll get back to that because I want to feel like you’re Chris yeah I’m really do I really do concede objective morality, so you want to be arguing with me on that because I mean I I don’t like I said I don’t really have a dog in that fight I sure jekima really exists they’re great I’m don’t really affirm that because of air theory but I have no problem with people having an objective moral framework at all gotcha okay Chris I want to hear your thoughts I haven’t yeah well just a couple real brief like Steve said I mean there there was quite a bit to unpack there and I feel like we kind of jumped around a little bit with the with a few different things but a couple of things that stick out to me that I that I will say Is I agree with Steve in the sense that you don’t have to be a theist or you don’t need a deity rather to To adhere to an objective moral framework I that I agree with that 100% now there’s a separate argument there that I think that you would have a grounding problem with you know as a objective Moral realist from an atheistic perspective it you get into like moral platonism that sort of thing I think we could argue which if if everybody’s willing to concede first off that objective morality is true which I don’t think anybody hears is is willing to do that quite yet I mean I personally think that objective morality is true and I can give reasons for that without Without positing a deity if you’d like but I think that the moral argument for God’s existence is a better argument than any atheistic objective morality that I’ve seen So I would say that there’s a there’s a grounding problem and I think the theist does have the advantage there to ground the good because that’s what we’re talking about as we’re talking about good we’re talking about objective moral truths and that which is good and right and wrong good and bad So I think that we can ground that in a necessary you know being such as God but once again that’s that’s a separate argument but as far as evolution is concerned I don’t I don’t even think that if evolution is true I think that We’re gonna have a have a problem at Holding to an objective moral framework anyway and the reason I say that is because if evolution is true then Morals aren’t necessarily true or false or right or wrong or good or bad it’s it’s they’re aimed at survival there may not be any truth value to those things it’s more aimed at survival so So I I don’t think that if evolution were true I think it’s gonna be even more difficult if you do believe in objective morals to really to really hold that framework I think that if you do believe in objective morality the Christian theist I think will not only not say just the Christian theist but the the atheist I think is gonna have an advantage as far as that’s concerned but I don’t think that like Steve said I don’t I mean he doesn’t he doesn’t believe in objective morals I He’s kind of agnostic to it and open to it but it doesn’t really hold to objective morality isn’t that correct Steve yeah but you Know why cuz it if they’ve rejected morality is this has no influence on normativity it makes No, difference to me whatsoever it’s just a framework it’s like what do you mean by normativity what we do in ethical situation normative ethics deals with why we do what what it means to do something right or wrong if I say it is wrong to do this and I appealed to consequentialism I appealed to deontology if I appeal to something normative those are normative ethical positions right so I rather you know talk about well what what makes a person moral if they do this is that a moral action I don’t care if the moral fact happens to be objective or subjective that’s are completely irrelevant to me I don’t I don’t think it’s really a factor in my life at all right that’s just a framework because like this I saying one plus one equals two is an objective fact because it’s based upon axiom so if I choose a specific axioms I want to start with I can build an objective framework such as one plus one equals two I think you could do that just as well with morals like this Harris does that so what yes there’s grounding problems I do agree with you with that there’s clearly a always a metaphysical grounding issue when you have objective morality but those are easily well Where do where do where do we even kick off a conversation about morality if I were to ask you Steve that it is it objectively wrong to molest children you would say that it’s not right well I would say from a normative point of view I think it’s you mean you can appeal to like moral absolutism or more universalism Okay when we’re saying something’s right or wrong in that case when we’re talking about objective morality we’re talking about a propositional value weird and that’s what I’m talking about right or say is that proposition true or false if if you take away the propositional aspect if you’re not looking at it propositional II you can apply you’re gonna peel an aura of ethics and say yeah it’s always wrong to molest a child sure but that has nothing to do with objectivity of subjectivity when we’re talking about the evaluation of a proposition if you if you have a cognitivist point of view on it right a moral non-cotton list would say that the proposition doesn’t really express beliefs So we’re assuming that it is a moral cognitivist position which means it’s propositional So I think it’s it’s just not really to me Important to a conversation about what somebody’s gonna do in an ethical situation I think it has very little to do with evolution because evolution is I mean sure there’s some more arguments to be had there but the the downfall or the rise of evolution is based upon Biology you’re never going to disprove evolution by a moral thing it’s just not going to happen you have to falsify evolution by biology and we know it’s a fact evolution happens we know it goes back for million billion years that’s not anything that’s in contention that’s nothing disputable about that that is a scientific fact if anybody thinks they can falsify that more power than to them but until then it’s a scientific fact and I treat it as A scientific fact same with the Earth’s shape to the earth it is a scientific fact the earth is round if you think it’s not you think it’s Falsifiable it is possible but if you think you can falsify it be my yes but until you do it stands as a scientific fact that is how well the problem is is that We need to define terms if we’re going to be talking about these types of things and I actually did a video on my channel called evolution as a belief because I define evolution in the way that I hear it being used in these type of Debates in these type of circles and when you say it’s a fact when, I hear people say that it’s a fact and then they go on talking about you know Darwinism basically when we’re talking about You know Genetic mutation and natural selection you know if you’re assuming those things in in the word evolution as fact then you are wrong because that is not a fact that is not Universal among scientists so we need to we need to define our terms first when you say evolution is the fact what do you mean by evolution well I say that and I say that kind of tongue-in-cheek because you can’t announce A chair as fact we don’t say TV as fact but a fact is is something generally willing to let’s go the correspondence theory of truth such that a fact is what ontological e relates Something to reality to a proposition so if I say Something is true then this has to be a corresponding fact for it to go along with it so if I say evolution is a fact it’s not really properly grammatically correct I should be saying evolution was observed and that goes back Billions of years that is a scientific fact now first of all I’m not a Darwinist so you use the word Darwinism I don’t know any Darwinist and I’m asked somebody the other day who claimed they knew Darwinist great if you know one introduced me I am putting this out that anybody anybody knows an actual Darwinist Get tuned to my channel I want to have a conversation with him I am 48 years old I don’t think. I’ve ever met one so You know I’m not a Darwinist right, oh Who, are you talking to me yes no, I I don’t okay. I’ve never met a Darwinist do you know any Personally no, okay Then what I don’t think are because well. No there are I mean i’ve century what You can go to my the comments section of my youtube videos and and it’s it’s all over the place people they see their Darwin there well they are appealing to natural selection in general that’s the site Darwinism yes no Have you read the Origin of Species did you yeah that’s a good question actually Did you read Origin of Species I haven’t read it all no yeah I would highly recommend it yeah it’s Darwinism is outdated Darwinism is is wrong okay we know about everything in there’s wrong yeah that’s a lot of what we know now to be in error but at the time it was really good and it was the foundation right just like any other thing as science science builds upon precepts but we know now that the the natural selection is not the only thing that drives evolutionary processes So that so Darwinism is literally the theory of evolution by natural selection we don’t go by that we have modern evolutionary synthesis so right there I think you have a straw man argument because you’re arguing a theory that D flopped I’m simply saying that if you define evolution as Darwinism like I see it being done in these side of Earth I don’t know what Listen go to my well you don’t have to but it’s all over my it’s all over my videos all the time well I don’t do it RJ and that I think that’s a wise that’s a wise position on your part So well and I want to add that I think the vast majority of people who throw Darwin’s name around they haven’t read the Origin of Species and B have no idea what they’re talking about yeah and by the way I’m not a neo Darwinist either whatever I don’t care if something call themself neo-darwinism by it but a true neo darkness I think is out The point I’m the point I was trying to make is that I think there’s a lot of confusion and a lot of misunderstanding around these terms that’s why I think these terms need to be defined Okay, without the fact you asked for the definition for a fact right well I said what’s your definition of evolution Okay, you know you don’t want to what a fact would be well I give you a definition Oh, yeah you can do that that’s fine evolution is a change of league frequency or heritable traits from one generation to the next generation over time a fact I usually just basically give something that has repeatable a demonstrable evidential and that has been consistently demonstrated time and time again with reliability The scientific facts for example are provisional their alternative scientific facts can change but it’s the best knowledge we have at the time so if I say something is long lines of that evolution goes back four billion years is a fact that’s based upon all the evidence from science it holds until somebody can falsify that That is a fact just because something doesn’t like that doesn’t mean it’s not a scientific fact kasaya effect hold on you said evolution goes back four billion years years yeah right exactly that’s that’s where life basically Goes back to but what do you mean by evolution exactly he just defined it as a change I allele frequencies in a population Over time so right So so you are Assuming a single common ancestor for all life I don’t assume that that’s actually a conclusion can you genetically prove it no you can’t genetically prove it well what’s your what’s your relation is your genetic relationship with a chimpanzee what’s the percentage It’s like 99.9 percent yep and what’s your relationship with a banana like 60 percent well that means you’re still related know it yes it does We’re kind of that’s common ancestry more than I think people complain yeah often right there the monitor Lucien Airy synthesis it does involve descent with modification but when we say evolution goes back not you know 3.9 million years that’s this a Reasonable inductive inference right because if I say hey you and I related somewhere down the line you agree with that right we have some common ancestor Yeah right right, so what makes that chain got causal chain stop there is no there is nothing you can think of this as that causal chain has to stop there’s nothing in genetics it says that right there’s like a biology and we actually found fossils that are 3.8 3.9 billion years old like stromatolites, okay okay, so that basically means the life basically came about at least four billion years ago from what we can see how do what we did exactly that’s precisely the quiet that’s what evolution is yeah if a population has a event that changes the allele frequency it’s now level evolved every population on earth every one of them right now is evolved every time there’s a reproductive event You have mcgraw you have around sixty two I’m training no we’re not assuming mean based on similarity yes you are you are you don’t know something about You haven’t observed anything you don’t have looked at really all like? okay what can I say something can I say something real quick you’re looking at the similarities in the genetic code that’s what you’re doing and you’re making a an inference assuming a single common ancestor produced all of this life that we have okay That’s what you’re doing just because of similarities and that’s just as much flawed is me saying that you know if Apple makes a you know a Macintosh computer and they also make a laptop the the information in their manuals might be very similar they might have similar parts they might have similar keyboards and screens and and you know hard drives but that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that one evolved from the other okay, well it’s a quick so just because you see similarities in genetic and fatigue your conceptions Chris yeah No, you are making and I could I if I could rebut that’d be nice So number one false equivalency man-made objects are not organic evolving organisms number two I can prove to you right now that every single person on this earth is evolving you will know how I do it well I can just I I Can just show you the genetic difference I’m not gonna let you bury source of life don’t humor scan of all an individual Human, doesn’t evolve no I I’m saying between between between you and your parents you are gonna have 60 to 100 Genetic anomalies between you your parents that is a change in allele frequencies in a population Yes, so the population has evolved not the end of it. Yeah yeah but yeah I need to specify the population but exactly true yeah why, we can prove that right now genetically I can also show to you because I can also show to you that just by comparing fossils and remains of humans that we are losing the fifth toe on our foot our pinky toe And one thing you got to remember Chris is that when we when we look at something we look at an overall evidential thing right there’s a Concilium spiit reen many different branches of science Okay, it’s not just one branch that says this it is every branch of science that can deal with this issue all has the same findings there’s nothing that stands out in any branch of science that says this is an anomaly how it can this be evolution proteomics a comparative homologies comparative anatomy comparative Comparative homi ologies homology is comparative When you’re looking at things like the gulab pseudogene when you’re looking at things like ER V’s when you’re looking at any kind of genetic or physical traits they all show exactly what evolution would predict the evidence is overwhelming you can’t just say well you know you can’t just say you’re assuming these are a conclusion If you if you have if you were investigating a crime scene and a guy has a bullet in his head a guy standing with a gun fingerprints on it trajectory logistics video Eyewitnesses and you’re sitting there going ah you’re just making assumptions that is what people listening in here When you say things like that they literally are seer you saying making the same silly argument as somebody was saying well yeah you’re just watching video oh you’re just happens you know ballistics Oh you just have forensics. Oh you just have you know Fingerprints and DNA analysis and eyewitnesses it’s you know it’s just you’re making assumptions. No there are thousands and thousands and millions of Papers written and evidence that support the theory evolution even more than the theory of gravity You need to define your terms if you’re gonna if you’re gonna say it just ever really look if you’re just gonna say evolution we’re gonna get nowhere with this conversation let’s term would you like to find because I will tell you that you said that it is Would you say that it is a fact would you say that it is a scientific fact universally held among all scientists That Four billion years ago we all evolved from a single common ancestor I would say that it’s universally held among the overwhelming vast majority around ninety-nine point seven percent of all the world’s scientists especially relating to the biological sciences, okay So they believe that that’s fine but would would they say that that is factual yes No, they would I could get you really to use a doctor well doctor dr. Mary Schweitzer who’s a collision biologist and she would tell you that me and I’ve had and I’ve had them out that’s fine I’ve had on my channel by the way but but listen this carefully if I did a random sampling of biologists and you know I know how many PhD is in biology right if I asked a random sampling of them I guarantee it’s gonna be around 99% I don’t I don’t even know anybody that would disagree besides one MD Who happens to be a young earth creationist right if you’re young a creationist you’re gonna disagree but anybody who’s not a young earth creationist I’ve never met one that Disagrees with the fact that we’ve been around for you know populations been been evolving for four billion years or so yet it’s ubiquitous and We have we have one of the greatest fossil records especially for human evolution for the last three million years we have So many links between us and our ancestors that at this point is irrefutable especially because several of our ancestors we have DNA remains from and our cousin species Homo neanderthalensis mm-hmm we have its entire genome decoded and can prove that they are a different species of Homo we know when they died out we know when they’ve diverged from us we know that there’s still Some of their DNA still left in us and some people it’s a you know a little bit of percentage We sure we know all that we have human lineages that go back Hundreds of thousands if not millions of years right we go to her own morass a raster we go to hold or high mutagenesis hominem fallacy q said I mean we know these things these are not something that’s contentious among science so the argument then goes to look it if you want to argue that evolution is wrong knock yourself out you’re not going to convince anybody doing this right your paper falsify it get famous because all you’re doing is basically kicking against the pricks here and tilting at windmills especially because I don’t think Chris that you you you are familiar enough with the topic to even really try to invalidate it and if You want a definition for something because we want to get back to this earlier what words am I using that you think needs to be more adequately defined because I’m happy to do that by the way welcome Jackson you’re late Well first of all accident the the the definition that you gave about evolution being a fact I agree with I have no problem with that but Francisco and this is part of my video that I that I did on evolutionist belief Do you know who Francisco Ayala is no okay He’s an evolutionary biologist he says that evolution can mean at least three different things if the first one was basically the definition that you gave the second one was reconstruction of evolutionary history which is is what you’re trying to assume because of the genetic similarities similarities that we the we all came from the single common ancestor and then three would which is what would be known as Darwinism so that’s an Evolutionary biology do you say we’re what one know that what a plane is one is a fact The first the way that you described it will is a fact the way that you first defined it is a fact single common ancestor is not An ism especially is it not ok let’s talk about those individually first of all all words are mostly Polyphemus they both they have multiple meetings in the context of biology right evolution is the first thing that I told you that’s that’s what it means ubiquitously now someone wants use that term in other ways They’re allowed to write there’s many words I use the word agnostic Gnosticism or Yoshimi agnostic is poly Simas – as we use outside the realm of philosophy into other things Words have different meanings in different contexts we all agree upon that, okay? but when you’re saying something like the Lions Lions of common ancestry – Luca that is not contested in science but there’s nothing in science to contest the fact that there has been some type of original population because Luke is not a single organism Luca is a population last common ancestors of population they don’t know what that population was they don’t know if it was eukaryotic prokaryotic they don’t know a lot of things about it but they know that something has to go back at least that far and it might be a little bit hazy because of horizontal gene transfer and the fact is that the tree gets a little bit more bushy but it still doesn’t negate the 3.8. Billion years afterwards we have a great record of nor does it make a dream nor doesn’t it negate the fuck nor does it negate our fossil record phylogenetics and Iiii I’d say about you know 500 other different fields of specialized biology that all back it up yeah, okay So this is this is all I’m going to say the way that you defined evolution it’s honestly it’s harmless any I think everybody even young earth creationists what it would agree with that definition of evolution but Maybe you’re using it that way here but most of the time when I talk to people they do not use it that way they I’m sorry I was late can you Reiterate your definition for me yes go ahead go ahead to find out the way you did it what I Know I have Jackson here now I’m all paranoid cuz you know he actually knows his stuff really well right I’m watching I hate you do you like it you Okay, so if you laugh at me I’m gonna find you I know you’re right P I define it this way and again this is A little bit stipulative but it’s for the most part you Defined it personally as a change of alia. Qin si or heritable traits in any given population from one generation or any population of species from one generation to the next generation over time it sounds perfect, okay so we now here’s the thing I can tell you Chris we nobody goes with that when you when you when you when you start screaming that out as a Faggot armless okay whenever you hit Chris let let’s Steve finish whenever you go into your conversation it really helps not the big brat baggage from any other conversation because I mean we thousands of conversations literally thousands of god I don’t know what you’re I don’t know what you mean You keep bringing in all those other people that use it incorrectly they’re trying to use it against us we’re not not bringing them up I’m not trying to use it against you then why bring them up Because you asked you asked me a question Steve you said I don’t know any of them Do you and I see him all the time and that’s all I was simply saying? Okay can you there’s a lot of misunderstanding can you do me a favor the next time I’m happy to oblige next time you find yourself that’s advocating for Darwinism send them my way and I’ll argue against them I know your my way I know you would Jackson will to probably Jackson you cool with that so but I if we could just move on from here a little bit the you know common ancestor is really not the the major issue I don’t think I think I think that I think the fossil record is In my personal opinion as I’m a layman and everything by the way I’m not an expert on anything I’ll just know that right now Okay and that’s fine because I try to rely on the on the scholars and you know and I tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about I haven’t looked into it but I I know What I see the scholars that you know our experts in this I that’s what I look at and Basically I think the I think the fossil record is decidedly against common ancestry false and and I’m sorry that’s so that’s that’s where my biggest hesitation is gonna come from so I asked you a question Yeah for instance with the reptile and mammal transition Yes Have you read any technical literature on it Or I don’t know what you by technical exactly but I scholarly scholarly materials yeah if you were to go to Google Scholar for instance Would would there be any papers on there you have in fact looked at regarding the reptile mammal transition what was the what was the source that she said I didn’t catch that I Said if you were to go to Google Scholar for instance or PubMed or some place that has Just go to r.j. Downards tip thing it’s all you need to do he’s gone nobody knows nobody knows it better than RJ Are there any places that you have read technical literature on this topic or any other topic in paleontology So what papers have you read on paleontology in the technical literature and from which scholars Yeah I’m not even really worried about the specific names like Gingrich or whoever just what papers have you looked at I mean I’ve I haven’t really looked at Papers per se I’ve seen interviews with Lynn Margulis. I’ve seen some of William Lane Craig criticisms on evolution maybe some planting goes but there’s No III know that’s what I just say These are these are Christian philosophers I don’t I don’t consider myself an expert on evolution I just said that I don’t really study evolution per se all right so but I am familiar with what you would refer to as the reptile to bird transition no sir it’s a reptile to mammal trained reptile mammal oh I didn’t catch that I thought you I thought you said bird yeah I think it was like around the time and like the therapsids mammal-like reptiles and stuff but no I guess let me point something out to you Chris You said something that I found unique and then I turn right back to Jackson you said you trust the experts 99 not let 99% of the experts agree with what we’re telling you 99% go and go do a random sampling 99 for some reason you think that that other thirds three standard deviations which is 9 seven right would be some point three would be probably higher than that I am, being conservative here, okay let me finish let me finish please um You’re saying that you agree with the sky you know you trust the scholars like that you’ve never read any of the papers now I have read some biological papers I couldn’t really name to me on top of my head I read more – I can tell you the names of the papers I’ve read off the philosophy because I’ve been doing that a lot more recently but I have read some papers I’ve read Mary Schweitzer is work alright cuz I had her on my channel so I can name her papers that I’ve definitely read I’ve read the paper on the human chromosome true fusion site right I’ve discussed that if you haven’t looked at the papers you haven’t really looked at the evidence you so your evidence that you’re you’re basically trying to evaluate it’s not primary as well I’m gonna go back through RJ here and watching here you’re going to secondary read actors and third and try Treasury read actors you’re not going to primary sources well I why, I quoted well I quoted maybe I didn’t quote Lynn Margulis but I I Mentioned her name I mentioned Francisco Ayala I don’t really I’m just really not interest I mean James wanted to have me on the top and I’m just not real real interested in evolution Honestly so I don’t really I don’t really research it extensively so I’m really a layman when it comes to that but let me let me let me finish just real quick but I quoted Francisco Ayala I quoted Lynn Margulis and I’ll quote a craig venter who actually was part of the first genome project even he has said that We don’t have the same genetic code There there there is no Universal Tree of Life he said that’s based on scientific, engine or old scientific studies that aren’t holding up so when you want to go around saying that’s been 99% of scholars your mail you know I have to inject you you’re misunderstanding what people are saying and that’s because you don’t have them No because do you go I agree you don’t even you you told me that you didn’t even know who Francisco Ayala was I know Rek venture is and I certainly know who Lima garlis is and I in a Jackson it was exactly what you’re referring to Soto I Or J. Is another first rodeo yeah what so I do agree she’s made some wonderful Contributions to science especially the endosymbiotic theory so she does know for instance that there is a phylogenetic tree of life because she’s aided it quite wonderfully but she does have some kind of strange ideas regarding speciation for instance and the extent of her indoor samiri but just because she has these ideas by herself doesn’t mean most biologists agree with me what scientists have the unique ideas that’s all And something wrong with that but she but Lin is never gonna say was she still alive she she dead right you died maybe I’m not sure now but she’s still alive I don’t know that that that we don’t have you know three three billion years of evolutionary thing but let me ask you this cuz I mean I think we’re getting down to the science and I don’t think that’s going to be Your area and I don’t want to like straw man you want to steal man you Do you think that if you knew evolution was an effect? beyond all doubt you know that it happened we know you know that goes back 3.9 billion years well well hold on a second could you mind if I interrupt this is I’m only just Not to try to be a nuisance Steve So when you say like we know evolution is a fact and you know namely going back three billion years like by devolution you mean Okay so now okay and that’s fair like I understand that I’m not saying you can’t have it mean more than one thing but but It is to be fair to Christopher and I’ll let you go right back your point Steve but in my experience it is true that most skeptics I run into and admittedly you guys are more sophisticated in the average YouTube atheist but I do think most atheists I run into For them the the most primary definition of evolution is they have no hey would not say anything about alleles changing in populations over time they would say they mean single-celled organisms bringing about all the diversity we have today through billions of years of change so like just to be fair that I do think that Christopher does probably experience that I believe I believe that he does too but here’s two things on that one again let me reiterate I’m not an atheist Okay and two I’m not here to defend somebody else’s of certian x’ if somebody else wants to make those kind of arguments they can do that I’m only going to argue what my interview I don’t bring in the baggage for what anybody have to say it all could be forever but shouldn’t ask you shouldn’t ask why I ran into any before that and I’m not saying that you have and I’m telling you if you find a Darwinist you find somebody that holds to Darwinism send it my way I will fix them and with with Jackson’s help right, okay but here’s the thing and if any people make mistakes god bless them we need to educate them as well but now if everything we’ve said is true we know human evolution has occurred from populations from common ancestry and we can trace that common ancestry all the way back 3.8 million years how does it affect your position with God how would it whoa where did that come from I’m not I’m not sure where that came from but I don’t think it does I wouldn’t say that evolution and God are mutually exclusive I wouldn’t even say that Perfectly correct per I’m on board with you on that Chris I don’t think there’s any reason why you cannot have a Convolution and a deity there’s no logical contradiction it’s called theistic evolution right. I see no issue with it people might argue it’s kind of surface to add those kind of assumptions fair enough but they’re not logically incompatible with each other yeah correct okay all right all right but I do have my criticisms of theistic evolution but but there’s also there’s others there’s like progressive creationism and that and that’s not great I would I would kind of lean more towards that way and the reason I and the reason I do is based on and this is the point that I was trying to get back to I mean people like Michael Behe and Michael Denton and they even they believe in they think well they say that the they see no reason to deny common ancestry So even they might even believe in a common ancestor but you know they they they advocate for intelligent design so in some aspects but but what I’m what I’m what I’m trying to say is a common ancestor is really not the the main issue I mean there are obviously some a Lot I am in honestly I think that the genetic evidence I think the genetic evidence is evidence totally is is evidence towards common ancestry I wouldn’t say that it is conclusive by any means but I would say that it is at least why is it conclusive I mean I I don’t understand because here’s the thing see we and Anthropologists have not even been able to construct or come to a consensus on just the human humans tree tree of life oh We didn’t even do that I came in to tell you exactly – because there might be some you know when it comes to like Homo habilis and hybrid against this they kind of kind of changed things around a little bit you know this the line here this low line here cro-magnon is no longer a thing I get those those are minor things Jackson as far as I’m concerned as far as I’m concerned these these other primates that you that you mention are just dead ends that Never led to Manuel yeah they’re dead Except for hope except for Neanderthals Have no idea they’re, humans yes how many analysts were humans but look what you just said they were evolutionary dead ends yes they got extinct they right In their in their own wait let me finish because their evolution of dead ends we they’re not evolved from them nobody says we have all Say, okay well you said that humans didn’t come from them we all agree on that right, humans do not come from if because if if we turn on them well we all share a common ancestor that’s what you’re saying right exactly Okay, what make sure we clear we can’t we can’t even we can’t even trace back like I said I mean I have I’ve tried to look for research on a consensus on Just human beings as far as the the ancestry tree and I can’t find anything I can’t find anything if you probably have Yeah go to Smithsonian org they have analyzed My anthropology professor was actually one of the leading experts on was an australopith the scene pelvises So I think he disagrees he and the other anthropologist he’s work with what I’ll disagree with that statement Yeah you can go to Smithsonian they have a really good thing on the human origins Oh, yeah they Absolutely do it’s really good yeah or just Wikipedia just go to Wikipedia and look at their sources I’m good yeah Chris I’m gonna tell you right now there is consensus among anthropologists and biologists no There’s not yes there is you denying it you haven’t you yourself said you have no actual read the scholarly research dude okay, so once we at least I’ve looked for the literate ask you Chris what is it contention you’re saying that there’s not a consensus what is in contention then let me say specific what do you mean I I mean what do I mean give me something that I typically contend since among scientists they have not come to a consensus with there’s a lot of things they have not come to a consensus with I agree with that and that’s with any model they haven’t come to consensus when it comes to Groudon Theory relativity as it relates to loop quantum gravity yes big deal what in humans evolution have they not come to consensus with and maybe Jackson being the the more expert of everyone here he can address it but given it give him something to bite into you’re just saying this not a consensus now if yeah and you’re just saying that because we see these these these this similar similarities in the genetic code From all the species that we’ve been able to Discover and we look at and that are DNA based and we look at the similarities that means that we’ve all came from a common and That’s that’s what you’re saying That’s a great question why does similarity imply relatedness What would you go ahead and tell me because You ever seen the show Laurie you ever seen the show Maury No not really I don’t watch a lot of TV sorry Okay, so that’s all right Maury is one of those shows that Morrie’s the show that is famous for saying you are the father because they compare the genetic code of the child to that of a potential father and they show is this the father or not because we can observe directly that genes are inherited and modified and passed down through successive generations So we can apply that idea backwards through time and show who’s related to who that’s happens what we did with Neanderthals for instance that’s how we know there are different species We do that with other species and I imagine you probably agree like dogs and wolves are related to each other right like that So bonobos and chimps or related to each other so you just keep pulling it backwards you just keep going and going and going yeah well we know this I would actually go one forward Jackson I would actually say that evolution builds upon existing homology with some structures So we can actually not use genetics we can use every other things relating to another phenotype with phenotypical things as well and proteomics just show and behavioral and behave I mean there’s a thousand different metrics we can use they all have again a Concilium showed that there is a a history of these populations we can make for it Do you do agree that speciation occurs I mean do you even get even? except that the speciation will happen Yeah! I’ve seen a reason to okay Okay so if speciation happens give me a reason why Speciation would have stopped if we do some aggression to it if we go back in time we have populations now that extant all right seven eight million in specie of animal and plant species right eukaryotic species out there I think about eight million give or take whatever if we if you do regression and we say they you know the his the lineage and we keep going backwards give me a reason why that has to hit a brick wall somewhere Well When you’re when you’re talking about these types of similarities between You know like he gave the I don’t know I think Jackson is his name um gave the example about you’re right you’re not the father and that’s where they I mean that’s you know that’s that To me is like I mean you’re talking about between one specific kind But but not the kinds. Oh, no I’m Talking about kinds I’m just saying if you want me to believe if you want me to believe as an absolute fact that me and the banana I share a common ancestor that goes back four billion years ago you’re gonna have to do better than that and just looking at genetic information for you know that’s all I’m some like to point yeah it goes next a lot of law No, it’s probably not to a couple billion years ago right but here’s the thing whatever it’s. It’s Do you realize though be what I’m saying in though you realized that you were earning carryout right do you agree that bananas are also eukaryotic yes, okay so if you go to time dot org time tree org which is a cool little site and you type in Almost sapiens you type in bananas whatever the Latin word and it’s good that you got to do it in there a technical thing it’ll show you the last common ancestor and where it fell in the time line you can do that I need to buy it by by putting in a bunch of information into a computer system that spits it out okay let me finish it No, let me finish it have to do better than that I I will if you allow me to Neil Shubin did something very similar to this when he wanted to find his specific fossil he wanted to have something that was transitional like for amphibian and humans that was relating I fish literally kind of walking out of water that certain specific specificities with that fossil he was looking for he would wanted to find out when the common ant last common ancestor was to find this particular fossil with these parameters In order to do that you have to have a method to relate it to where you’re going to find it not just Stratigraphically not just in the geological Ha right you’d have to know the timeline do you have to know the location too of where this population Existed do you have to know that the the geo? geo biological aspect of these populations He did this he went to whatever the Nile and it is off of a Nova Scotia I don’t remember the exact name of the town because reasons Jackson might remember it was Canada that’s all Over Canada Canada um and he found exactly what I’m looking for not just one but multiple ones of them that’s a predictive model that is something that we can utilize the show you know we want to make a prediction about this this is what We do now I asked you if evolution doesn’t hold that truth if common ancestry doesn’t work that way if we cannot see similarities that way that we can make predictions of how did he find that’s that fossil if it did It’s a lot of one is all off So so I’m not I’m not I’m not saying necessarily that it’s all wrong perhaps I don’t know what I am saying is you gave an example of where you can it can be predicted and you can find something that you’re looking for but what about what we should expect to find that we haven’t found what about that if this is a great question if this is evidence for your this very obviously then what about how is it not evidence against When we look at our fossil record and as far as I’m concerned from an on a Jeff objective observer standpoint unless you think that a dinosaur can or a reptile can leave an egg and hatch into a bird or something Which I’m not I’m not hold on hold on I’m not. No I’m not opposed to that but I don’t think what the fossil record is is decidedly against that, no Nobody expects that Okay crackles in Crystal then let the guy who actually owns biology child it’s the three of you talking here and I’m sitting here trying to make a point and it’s almost impossible to do well because your point is nonsensical and straw man’s everything we know about biology it’s not should it be you shouldn’t be saying that it doesn’t when you haven’t actually read the scholarly material and you’ve admitted to that I know I haven’t read a lot of it hey Chris But Michael didn’t learn Uncle Ben’s a scientist is he not he said for a bat and a whale to share it to some ancestor He’s a biochemist he’s a scientist For a bat in a well which are mammals to share a common ancestor we would need millions millions of transitional forms that are not there Darwin and his day knew that it was a problem then it’s still a problem You guys have your hands on your face and lifting up your arms I haven’t done that doesn’t explain My face but I didn’t put my hand on my face that’s good good for you There are a number of issues here the primary issue is Essentially the absence of evidence is evidence of absence is kind of the first bit really it’s almost amazing it’s almost miraculous that we have fossils at all I mean the conditions under which fossils are made are pretty slim and so that we have fossils at all is amazing and that we Yeah and I think he had a me for a second let me jump On that then we have transitional fossils we have millions of transitional fossils and the fact that we have as many as we do is impressive we’re never gonna find all fossils cuz foul civilization is rare It’s one of the things we have a jigsaw puzzle you got a pieces you know it’s pictures I’m sorry I dropped out there you go We don’t have millions. I’ve maybe thousands I don’t know about millions the problem is the problem Section is a very rare occurrence and even Have lots and lots transitional fossils even among bats believe it or not Jackson you’re dropping out Now you’re dropping out by the way we do have no needs of pollicis matter of fact just one fossil alone call the Nautilus I mean they found scores of these things ladies think you’ve dropping off on me So even among bats we have fossils of transitions for instance the earliest bat fossils we have don’t show evidence of having the echolocating ability such as on a connector that’s one of the earliest ones so I think that is the earliest one and so we we could live in a world we didn’t have any fossils at all we would still be able to draw the fact that Evolution happens at common ancestry happens from genetics alone now fossils allow us to calibrate how distantly in the past the genetics Forms these common ancestors or the indicates these common ancestors and so it fossil record is really this kind of extra this whole bonus that we get It might not exist at all but it does a huge bonus but if we didn’t have it that wouldn’t be an argument against evolution that wouldn’t be an argument against any anything can I can I scream sure we’re quick if you if I may well I didn’t I didn’t say I didn’t say that first of All you were no I you’re saying that we said you were saying why isn’t it an argument against evolution when we don’t find transitional forms in the fossil record yeah you were at least And I’m gonna steal madam there is a fossil that we are looking for and I’m hoping that Jackson will approve of this we haven’t found Pam Pryor yet Pam Pryor is a fossil that’s the last common ancestry between US and Pan troglodytes which would be trips that fossil is expected to be six million years ago not me I’m not mistaken we have not found that one yet however we found have found a Pierre Leviticus catalana ‘kiss which was the last common ancestor to all members of minute.i which is about 12 million 30 million years ago they found that one in Spain and they found it not too long ago explained maybe a decade or so from somewhere in that ballpark and the reason they found that because is what I’m showing now and if modern day history wants to like Show this this is this is what you would ask for it how do we find the last common ancestry of Wales so T SIA compared to a bet you would type this in to this kind of program it’ll tell you the last common ancestor was on 84 million years ago you would go find the period of time Mesozoic you know Cretaceous whatever the period that it corresponds to you you go look in the Geo strata to find that layer and if you find a fossil with the with the similarities you’re looking forward between the bat and the whale it is a predictive model that works That’s what scientists want to see they want to see predictive abilities there’s a lot of effort that goes into modeling these things So people can make accurate predictions from them Right you’re just throwing it away like it says know what’s not know I’m not throwing it away but hey you are you let me When he suggested you go that website is a computer with a bunch of information yeah exactly thank you dismiss No, I did yes you did and we do romance video let’s not witness that’s not what I was saying you’re not gonna prove anything you’re talking about whales and bats and and and you know transitional forms between these that is a triviality a triviality in comparison to what we should expect if whoa why possible a very rare occurrence Where are we at here? okay this is all you jackson take it this is your area of opportunity we got mammals right here those are all in the vertical that’s a fish No mammals underneath vertebrate I can fish fish mammals and birds so tell me if you’re gonna tell me that I’m a mammal and another mammal shared a common ancestor and we have transitional fossils to prove that that is a triviality that is a triviality comparison hold on in comparison to what the the the the paradigm on a grand scale Postulates what are you looking for there and hold on and this is all with just in the animal we’re talking about? what what she’s talking about bacteria what two species are you looking to find ancestry for look I was quoting Michael Dennin Which You can discredit him as a scientist if you want but no? No, he’s a frankly Doesn’t matter like I mean I can I can find I can find the paleontologist and you’ll say well it doesn’t do population genetics So you know you can’t so it it doesn’t matter whatever I say is this credit you’ve been asking me if I’ve read this what my education level is why Haven’t I done this look I’m more than happy to read whatever you want to give me But I don’t think you are to be honest with you Chris I have a whole channel full of information Yeah, I I’m not trying to be disparaging but you’ve come to these conversations before you haven’t read any literature prior I can send a ton of different stuff first off well the note for the record number one I agreed to come on this discussion it was from what I understand you they didn’t want to debate Darwin’s Darwinism for whatever reason because I don’t Okay that’s fine you wanted to have this this group discussion here What I did not sit this up this was muttered a in stereo was nice enough to ask me and I’m friends with them and I’m like sure you did he did and it was always under the impression that You wanted it to be a kind of an informal discussion as opposed to a debate and I’m just a debate this is not a debate trust me This is not a debate he’d never build it as a bait I hope you didn’t build this to the bay because I’ve only had two debates maybe possibly three if you kind of technically did you count the one that I had with stated clearly which I don’t think it was a debate but non sequiturs show That’s one let’s technicality bait I don’t know by the way Did you watch that anybody watch that I am did you think it was, okay yeah I think I think you did really well thank you let’s come back No, I mean well let me just share a few things so Just so I’m on the same page with everybody is is there Darwinism defined as like the classic the traditional definition of evolution being The result of natural selection and mutation or is there something different no there’s no mutation in the theory. Oh yeah because Darwinism is the theory of evolution by natural selection the natural selection was a driving force of evolution that’s pretty much it yeah there was no, ever There was a DAP tation ISM and there was also evolutionism which was in the 19th century we don’t hold any moves anymore education it which by the way adaptation ISM is not a bad theory if you really look at it I’ve looked into that it makes sense but we know that’s not how it works right science builds upon a better understanding of things Okay, so we’re widow at least. We haven’t had to finishing town because so I misunderstood that but I’m glad we’re on the same page there and one thing I would say that Would be more persuasive now I’m not saying you guys don’t have the beef But one thing is that if you say that now I and maybe I’m expecting a lot of you because I know that this isn’t Like an academic it is a an academic type thing but to an extent it’s it’s uh! It’s not like you’re taking like comprehensive exams or something on this that when you say That the majority of people from this field or this fuel believe this I’m not denying it I’m open to believing it it’s an empirically testable claim you just run the surveys and if the methods are good it’s a settled question But I like are there the sources is that I’ve heard it claimed by a lot of people but it’s like it would be more persuasive if you did have the sources if you say the majority of anthropologists take this position because otherwise it is kind of like because you know I as Christopher has said no they don’t and then it’s like well now what do We I do know a place you can go get some of the sources the National Center for Science education they’ve run oh, yeah on it Okay there what the American Association for the Advancement of science they’ve run one and so yeah there are some there there are a few of them if you want to go find them There’s don’t there’s also like the Royal Science Academy or something like that and in England that run some as well so yeah, okay, so Do you happen to know so I’m just saying it would be more persuasive if you could match them again that’s a lot to expect because it’s like asking you to prep like you’re going through comprehend its comp exams or something, so Well but if you do share the links I’m willing to put those in the description whoever side has links to back up what the majority of believe on which side so come on I think you could pop over to like Wikipedia So well can I can I not quote Michael Denton is that okay to do who is said that for a bat in a whale which are both mammals by the way for a bat in a well to have evolved from a common ancestor they would there would literally be millions of transitional forms that are simply not there so let’s just and that that is that is just within the mammals of one group of the vertebrates of one kingdom the animal kingdom right I mean we’d so so this is this I can’t take Extrapolation that Jack we’re taking from these from these from from the evidence that we do see on a micro scale the this to extrapolate those changes into this macro evolutionary paradigm that shares a common that’s Luca common ancestor four billion years ago is how are you’re gonna have to do better than that That’s small like you said let’s start small let’s start with just the mammals the bat in a whale that you brought up So are you aware that both bats and whales are Laurasia therians I’m not Studies ons and they’re different sections of their genome are you where for instance that whales and hippos are sister to each other At hippos the actual supposed to be the closest relative I just feel well yes okay, so So whales and hippos are sister to each other this clade called Whipple which is kind of fun to say so are you aware that that these two the WIPA Morpha is nested within artiodactyla they even hook mammals again through humorous genetic studies no I don’t Okay so what’s going on well I’m not really I’m not I’ve already conceded that the the genetic evidence I think is does point towards common ancestry okay I already said that well they’re all what what they’re also fossil linking these together mm-hmm so you know and I just and then I just quoted Michael Denton with the millions of fossils on between the one bath and a West though that aren’t there so okay go ahead It’s not really helpful to say that there aren’t millions of fossils I mean if there aren’t then there aren’t but we do have some we can show for instance all of the early the way all of the early whales the archaea seeds such as pakicetus and ambulances and they have the inner ear structure of Which is unique to whales all cetaceans have this very unique inner ear structure but they also have? The the ankle structure the astragalus which is a bone and their ankle which is unique to artiodactyls So they have these characteristics which were unique to both clades which places them in between the modern alleles and the ancient artiodactyls and So when you take the so you look at the fossil evidence and we’ve already got fossils pointing to this conclusion which they already knew years ago they knew they’ve known for decades before we could even genetically test whales we knew that they’re related to either mazanik kids which was the old theory or Some other hood mammals but and that has now been confirmed with genetics so the genetics and the fossils have confirmed each other Really conclusive – you know I don’t I don’t think so well didn’t you I’m not familiar with some of the organisms that you mentioned as far as what did you say the the archaea what so these are called archaea seats aren’t old whales is basically what their names means so is that a Oh, so this is a this is a whale basically these are early ancestors of whales that we’re still walking on land okay one once again that is a triviality Why, that is because this is we have them they exist and therefore the theory holds holds I mean how could they be wrong it because I just totally we would need we would need million We don’t know we don’t I think Michael did why Michael Dennin eight okay Michael Dennin has been rejected by the vast majority of the Scot of the scholarly world because his claims are so wild and bull that’s why none of his books are peer-reviewed yeah and I mean I looked into his claim on that before he I don’t leave it as correct on a plane stress imagination but here’s the thing all right but He asked to explain why he thinks twofold one that we would expect to see millions of fossils by fossilization fossilisation is not a common occurrence so why would he expect a million fossils to be had we didn’t know he knows oscillation doesn’t happen very often – according to the father genetics And the molecular clocks it doesn’t add up that you would be having millions of things so wet what is his primary source cuz that claim because Christopher everyone responded this have that thought in mind and then I also I just want to be able to before we go into the next thing I want To give Christopher a chance if he wants to defend Michael Behe against Christopher biblical historical skeptics objection that my only thing is I just wanna I think I’m maybe not doing a great job of trying to sometimes it comes to the point where to from one group will give a response and Christopher boyars trying to respond and It’s sometimes that there are so many objections that unless he’s writing these down really fast It’s gonna be hard for him to keep up with them and so well James I like you I think you’re doing a fine job thanks I appreciate it although at the same time my hope is that Christopher Christopher I’m sorry Christopher Boyer hopefully you feel like I’m not doing too bad a job of letting you get to respond to each one because we have a lot of different objections from the opposite side of Christopher Boyer so anyway Christopher Boyer if you want to respond Steve and then also if you want to take a Chance to respond to Christopher biblical historical sceptics Well I don’t really know what I was where I was gonna go there I forgot what I was gonna say I guess Can you not feelin Okay if you don’t mind me pressing back just against Christopher cuz. I’m like you so I get it that Michael Behe is you might say in a hot ball at a little bit in his claims As you might know he’s he’s in it he’s a young earth creationist? No, he’s a well Line advocate with a irreducible Complexity a nice guy okay so he’s so he’s not a young earth creationist but the one thing is Even if you know Darwin was a radical at his time and probably a lot of scientists at Darwin’s time were kind of like ah, let’s not assume so I mean you know it’s just not super persuasive that Michael Behe being a radical and therefore not being listened to it’s not super well I was going after be he I was going after Denton for ocean okay Denton’s the reason that I was going after Denton is a all of his claims have been rejected for a multitude of reasons but but I mean – if we’re gonna go with the one that Chris keeps using it which is um you know about the bat and the whale we have fossil evidence that proves him wrong and his story and that’s and this is one reason why his books not neither of them is – that I know of are ebony even published in a scholarly press because They’re not they are not scholarly work anyway so you asked me you asked me about Scholars and I give you these scholars and you say well they’re not really scholars there, no Work is so bad that scholar I can just dismiss every Christian how about me pick how many Paleontologists do you know that agree with them says that’s their expertise this is the area of their job in their cladistics clay expert in cladistics or paleontology or In well Pele doggy would work too but in follow genetics how many of them agree with Denton because it’s not a phylogenetics expert So how many would agree with him I I don’t know well that’s what you need to look into because that’s really the case if my garden has a PhD in in astrophysics but He’s you know I’m asking him about about Like biology or something like that then he’s not really qualified to talk about about biology he knows that landscape he know it’s about astrophysics Denis expertise is not in these areas so just because you have one person who’s saying these things you’re and I honestly have to ask you this why do you take the anomaly’s why do you take the outliers as more validity it has more validity or more reliability and more convincing to you than the entire field of science that’s saying that they’re wrong that’s what I did that’s what climate change deniers do well that’s that’s not yeah I haven’t that’s not anything that. I’ve said tonight I Haven’t said that I’ve just given some. I’ve just given some names and some quotes that they’ve said that that seemed to me from an objective observer to be rather skeptical of the reigning paradigm which is hold on you saved Arwen ism you said Darwinism you know you said no one as a Darwinist basically then I know we hope that I know that that I know of might I have a thought that Kevin I don’t never met one though so let me just say like I said common Ancestry is is the least of the issues that I have even Michael Behe believes in common si I think Michael Denton does as well So I mean he would be in agreement with Everything that you’ve said so far you’re not you’re not for Darwin a Darwinist But so if I were to just concede the genetic evidence it is in favor of common ancestry let’s just assume that that is truth okay it’s a fact like you said I Guess my my my my biggest issue is is the fossil record And you say we have fossils but I just? there’s just simply not enough timing Darwinism what do you like it or not it is it is the best um naturalistic hypothesis I reject I be jealous Okay hold on hold on so tell me so tell me other than just assuming common ancestry and all these all these different species came about how did this happen because Darwin explains or attempts to explain how it happened what naturalistic hold on what naturalistic explanation do you have to give to the evidence for for something to reject Darwinism genetics Exactly it Hold on Chris I have read Origin of Species and I’m currently about almost halfway through the descent of man Darwin did not have access to a lot of things darwin’s conception of how species changed was entirely through natural selection that was it there were you know variations in offspring and there was natural selection that was it Everything that is like you know no matter how minor it is there’s a reason A natural reason that it you know ended up this way nature either or the population either needed it to be bigger or smaller or faster stronger whatever but we know that that’s not the case anymore because we have things like genetic drift and gene flow and and of course the entire field of genetics which wasn’t Discovered till many years after he died well yeah they had a kind of concepts they had a conception but I think the biggest issue that Darwin got wrong was he actually positively posited more of genetics by blending Particulate right we know it’s particulate now and He posited blending which by the way was not a bad model to have back then especially knowing what we know about Mendelian inheritance but he was wrong he was completely wrong about that he got it wrong but we know more now right so I don’t hold it Darwinism because Darwinism is about blending I don’t hold a blending I want to particulate cuz we have DNA So it’d be fair to say no one in this room is a Darwinist right so you bring up Darwinism all you’re doing is creating an effigy of a strong man that he’s arguing for and explaining genetics is similarities in a genetic code it’s information it doesn’t say how these things came about so I ask again what naturalistic what natural little answer hypothesis do you have you can’t say genetics because that’s that’s not exciting how ready that doesn’t do it at the fact that you have what’s called recombination in your genes the facts that you have what’s called genetic drift which is a random sampling of a population causing causing things to die you have things like called migration or gene flow right you have a whole bunch of you have also other things like Epigenetics we have people Evo you have all these different things that all combine? To these theories in all of these things in evolution so when you’re asking what is the mechanisms those are the mechanisms even said jex even told you a couple of them and you still ask what are natural you just told you what they are is more than just natural by the way what quick I’ve one of those people that’s gonna go against the grain here and everybody is gonna like crap on me right now for this I don’t think natural selection is a great theory I think natural selection doesn’t explain much I agree hashtag boots I like you I like you Chris but but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong natural selection happens you still have diversification you still have convert I was at there’s three types of natural selection by the way those all happen right and so natural selection occurs but it doesn’t explain a hell of a lot I do I know makes a good argument on that so it occurs but it doesn’t create it might maintain or eliminate but it was great what did you get did you get correct it’s not even use the term create it in this context because that automatically just implies design Necessity I don’t know I don’t give a crap about that because well and in order to create something creation also implies a mind behind it as well um yeah no I mean I I have an argument but I have no problem with design the hand is designed to crypt things it is designed by do that by team anatomic might Elia Nami man fact that’s one of the greatest things Darwin’s ever did Darwin actually showed that by telling AMA tree deal did Delia Namie that acidity illogical that things can be designed by nature that doesn’t need an intelligent agent right So because we have these tele anomic things that we can look into say it has a parents resign it is designed it’s it’s not my nature I got no problem with that I’m and I axon you see now no problem that most biologists I know have no issue with that so I don’t want to go down those kind of roads but um somebody When you say when you say about created you exist because you have a different genotype than your parents and as Jackson astutely pointed out usually about what a 60 to 100 different unique mutations because of error correction factors and in differences between your parents cuz DNA doesn’t really create DNA properly it has some errors that creep in and you have like three types of error correction and they don’t even do a great job If I remember correctly is like one error every 10 to the 6 then one error every 10 to the 8th one error every 10 To the ninth so you have a lot of DNA though so even at 10 to the 9th you still have? Mutations like creeping that are unique to you that is that that’s it that that’s why you are different right if not you because So so no I’m not saying that natural selection isn’t isn’t Doesn’t happen or doesn’t occur I in random mutation doesn’t happen or doesn’t occur I I agree that it does we see we see that with the different you know with the Finch beaks and the the peppered moths and and and that’s this sort of thing but nothing really evolved I mean these things it wasn’t a new species that came about from these mechanisms it was they when they got when they win the war know when the water came back the the Finch beaks went back to normal and and and that sort of thing so it in natural selection it like I said it maintains and eliminates but it doesn’t create anything Yeah speciation is something different by natural so all’s always always saying with that is there’s different species that’s How do you think yes? Exactly that’s kind of what I’m asking you guys for and just gave me the process No, you didn’t give me the process you’d be dead genetic Khan no You didn’t you didn’t explain no look doc Darwin is there is no naturalistic explanation you just said Darwinism is basically dead and I agree with you but I McClay right now that is the best That is the best naturalistic explanation it’s horrible explanation we have genetics now what thought you would be sad about that we have genetics populations nothing there’s nothing looking at information in the DNA code Do are you kidding me like we got we got Molecular Genetics got we got ecology biochemistry we have all these words that those have contributed to how we understand speciation events right through natural processes Right you know okay so speciation occurs because you have a population and if it gets divided through say allopatric it’s moot half of it moves to a new location They have to adapt to a new environment and so enough genetic differences will accrue between the original Populations that eventually they will no longer be able to interbreed with each other thus a new species is formed yeah So you accept you accept things like he described you allopatric speciation which we know occurs marine species is a type of allopatric speciation do you agree that that happens I I don’t know I mean I would just have to take your word for it. I’m not sure no, don’t Calm down. I look I’m gonna just connect I’m gonna quote somebody else here if I can Francisco I y’all I’m gonna quote him again try and he’s and he said um I mean I admire your guys’s confidence and these these mechanisms and whatnot nice confident them to Meet a world-renowned evolutionary biologists right exactly any needs a Christian and And yeah doesn’t matter just you know it doesn’t matter but it matters when you Give all his accolades right but when I when I give when I say something about what is the argue okay what is it you’re? Saying though are you I’m gonna read I’m gonna quote him if I can he says unfortunately there is a he’s talking about common ancestry and not not the definition you gave of evolution by the way he’s talking about common ancestry and natural selection genetic mutation that that sort of thing so this is what he says and I quote Unfortunately there is a lot lot lot to be discovered still to reconstruct evolution history We have to know how the mechanisms operate in detail and we have only the vaguest idea only the vaguest idea how they operate at the genetic level how genetic change relates to development and function I am implying that what would be discovered would be not only details but some major principles so major principles There the Mechanisms accounting of these changes are still going under investigation and Steve here’s where I would agree with you and he would agree with you And everybody would agree on a definition of evolution he says the evolution of organisms is universally accepted by biological scientists while the mechanisms of evolution are still actively investigated and are subject to debate among scientists connect connect so there we don’t have any naturalistic explanation that’s not all No I didn’t say that nice try that’s what he said you know I didn’t say that I’m asking you forgive me the naturalistic well can I try something and then let Jackson cuz he’s knows this more than I do but but I want to I want to clarify one thing He says he’s just something very specific you said at the you said up to the genome level right you said that the gene at the genetic level that’s what I’m saying right right natural selection when it acts upon Genetics right there’s there’s actually a very you know I I don’t know the theories behind this but there’s a very different way things Are selected for when it comes to the genes as opposed to the natural selection selecting a phenotype with access to the environment Okay, so I think that you’re miss reading his paper and I don’t have the expertise on it to adequately explain it I just know enough to know that when you’re talking about the genomic level It’s a completely different thing than then talking about the mechanisms on the phenotype which what we’re talking about Because there is a lot of work to beat add on the genetic level that even goes back to things I get the genetics you know ever heard of that before Yeah but he is we only have the faintest idea or the vaguest idea rather at the genetic level I think yeah that doesn’t contradict anything of what we’ve said so far so now so what does that mean we means we need more research in that area that’s all it means sir well it doesn’t mean it’s wrong doesn’t mean there’s not much information well you’re saying that the this is this genetic similarities that we see Suffice us to explain I don’t we all know that come on I really didn’t I said it is a Concilium some many different branches of science including comparative homologies comparative anatomy of proteomics Yogi’s metric protons all right so it’s a baby wasn’t you have to take all these things into account Chris you really honestly do because it look look as I’m asking I’m asking for is what is that what is the explanation What is the natural explanation we’ve got a little multiple times and you just don’t accept it I don’t think I I do accept it I accepted your definition what I’m asking for is how did these changes come about Changes between changes between mammals yes Diverse the planes hold on do you understand that oh don’t ask if we understand we Okay, wait wait guys you’re giving me Evidence for some changes that are that are occurring in just the mammals no you can apply this to all across the board you think first of all some Pathak speciation wait wait wait spastic speciation generally happens at the at the Bacteria level because you’re dealing with changes of the chromosome number right, so I I don’t even know how an animal we’re going to go There might be some weird examples out there Cain but but generally speaking most animal is going to be diversified by allopatric speciation right Now can you have some Hendrix sir but you find a lot more symmetric speciation at the vial at the Bacterium level all right Lance or plant so you so if you have these types of speciation they can go back to all the way To the first domain you have processes that you can say from the very first because of horizontal gene transfer you can have things like whole genome duplication you can have Sympatric speciation now you have a mechanism by which you have a sick a single population creating multiple different populations that are I’ve been speciated from them do you think that if you have a population of bacteria and let’s say it has to N3 you know what that means if I say 2n equals 3 you don’t know it just means the diploid number this means the chromosome account is 3 ok and If you have another species a bacteria has a diploid number of 2 and they mate, ok? they’re gonna produce 5 now 5 can generally not be viable because the way the mechanisms work for mitosis but what happens is they can be event called a whole genome duplication and that event will cause that 5 to become 10 tennis even 10 is more easily to have a Meiosis and the population now is 2 and 10 that is not viable and as mister is now viable and but as not biologically be productively capable of having reproduction with his prior ancestry that’s a speciation event that is some Patrick speciation I might be butchering by the way this because I haven’t looked at this in so frickin long if you’re a biologist I probably fuck this up but it’s close just a site now Alcohol is good I need alcohol by the way Jackson can you review me on that how much I got that right and wrong I am NOT on win7 ages oh It’s um Patrick speciation as far as whole genome duplication and why you would have a speciation yeah That’s a lot that’s a way you can have from Luca on in horizontal gene transfer And I think it’s starfish and pine trees are so we have date palms I think I’ve read something on that on but So so hold on repeat repeat the mechanism that you said that we can get from Luca to the changes that we see in the animal kingdom can you kill repeat yeah it’s not just one I mean the horizontal gene transfer and sympatric speciation but can I connect you know and I hate doing them I really do but for the love of God man if you don’t know what a diploid number is you don’t know what a chromosome number is Do you really think you’ve done that much research because I guarantee it this is stuff that we probably knew in sixth grade So how much research could you’ve really done to evolution to say you don’t even know what a diploid number is and I’m not trying to mean you I’m honest to god that’s well that’s all you guys Have been doing you asked me have I what if I read your you said what education Look I’m quoting I’m quoting the scholars that I that I have in front Line is not a valid way to argue no Because you’re not argue okay obviously that up and nothing I say is valid clearly now if you don’t Understand what’s this if you don’t understand what they’re talking about how can you hide and what the quotes have to do with it and I understand that there is no naturalistic Meck Meck we just told you No I’m not finally listen Steve finally a scientist that will that will tell me exactly what you said fine fine that we went from Luca to what we have here the mechanism find me find me inside Only there is is the only no, I don’t know why keep going to Darwinism They’ve never even read the Origin of Species I have a one question I gotta ask this dude if you think Darwinism is the best way that happens can you explain to us how that works without genetics then go ahead Because Darwinism doesn’t have anything to with genetics because he didn’t know about genetics He again he posited blending not particulate so if you’re gonna pause it that Darwinism is the best explanation for this can you tell us here, how that works, no, I I say that’s the only mechanism okay, how does that work What is the what is the mechanism by Darwinism how does Darwinism work according to you according? to me I just quoted Francisco Ayala who says that it’s mutation No, no, no, no that’s not doing this. No, no, no Darwin Listen very carefully Darwinism did not know anything about genes how could he have natural selection on genes think about this carefully Chris I’m not trying to – okay hold on so Joey in Darwin’s day in Darwin’s day wasn’t called genetic mutation was called a random mutation a random mutation is a change of the genome dude okay I know I know and why would we and when we found out about DNA and genetics and that sort of thing it did give evidence towards Darwin’s theory no It didn’t he had pert he had posited blending not particularly I don’t know why this is the last upon you he was wrong Darwin was flat-out wrong on that He didn’t know anything about genetics Irwin it was about as right as Aristotle oh good grief I don’t know why you’re saying good grief I still haven’t heard of mechanism you I mean seriously that’s because nobody Okay, what is your definition of a mechanism I’m curious here how do we explain the diversity of biological life that we have here again what Genetic drift gene flow which is migration that doesn’t change let him create new species Do you know what genetic drift is it doesn’t have to I have a vague I I what do you mean it doesn’t have okay? okay You guys are just you think you can’t say Natural selection is the only thing that could and again please the biologists out there I like men right information listen natural selection can only act upon a deleterious or beneficial mutation okay but gee Genetic drift can act upon neutral mutations okay because they’re random sampling of the population so it does have an effect on the population if you go look at genetic drift it will change a population because of random sampling issues even though it’s dealing with neutral mutations absolutely the founder effect a good example of that man So Chris I mean you were giving you these answers and all you’re doing is saying you don’t have you don’t have any answers Do you how dishonest that sounds to people listening to you what do you mean I am quoting? All’s I did was quote Francisco Ayala I’m no expert I told you no He didn’t say that there were no mechanisms that know where and his quote did he say there were no Mechanisms he says we need to study these mechanisms that. We have further now develop a better understanding I can’t agree with that that’s what he said yes which we all agree with okay he’s not saying that He’s saying we need to study them further and you’re saying that this is evidence that it occurs Wrote if ax T further and that’s confirmed model to hate to break it to you exactly use it like every day don’t choose I know what a GPS is that relativity I’m sorry what isn’t That’s actually both forms of relativity you have to be a counter for for well general and special relativity believe or not. Okay yeah because it’s obviously higher than the earth and it’s always go learn something new Now I keep forgetting that which one has the greater influence the general or the special on that I have to look that up that bugs me cuz I Keep forgetting that’s you ever had one piece of knowledge that you you know one is greater than the other but you can’t remember which was which and you haven’t develop a monadic to keep it that’s which one’s greater influence I think it’s I think it’s JIRA has a greater influence in the SR well at any rate we have demonstrated repeatedly mechanisms that affect populations yeah naturals right sexual selection genetic drift gene flow all mechanisms and I got one thing I want to show you that they happen within species and it’s pretty observable well it’s easy to it’s but you’re that’s not that’s but that’s not what you’re saying what you’re saying is we all came from Luca and these say a mekinese no why created these new species and that is not No, no no, sciences I know will say that at what point did normal evolution break down and something else take over at what point well it’s it’s moved it’s moved on a lot since I think that I think Darwin is garbage as Darwinism is and no one agrees with it obviously which I find ironic because every time I talk to skeptics they’re always Praising darling you need to get a higher caliber skeptic, okay, so so um Okay, whatever so anyway um But no this is news to me so I I think that I find I find it remarkable that you think that these Darwinian mechanisms because they are I mean natural selection danger if all this stuff is not Darwinian gene shift deals with genes I don’t know why you keep getting big wrap your hair around this Chris oh, why is that not a random mutation though wrap your head around this answer my question is that not a random mutation what is what addresses what Genes rift no Jenny and rip have to do with random sampling of a population yes okay, but wrap your head around this if I mention the word Darwinism forget genetics because genetics was not involved in Darwinism you don’t have jeans and Darwinism and I wanted to show you something real quick on here because I I know we’re gonna cannulate I’m sure monastery has got many other things do you want to move on you asked about how Information is in the system and I wanted to show you something that I had I had came up with And and basically this is kind of cribbed a little bit from other sources that a papers that I’ve read with a with a little bit of understanding to it but there’s something called Shannon information and this is what I gave him the presentation on I didn’t I think which stated clearly the very first formula then I don’t want explain the technicalities of this too much but the very top form it is a very famous form of the for Shannon information okay and It’s really not that hard to really figure out basically saying look at it if you have two possible states you need one bit information to describe it so a coin toss like a quarter has two possible States heads or tails you can describe that with one bit of information Okay, so 0 or 1 that’s one bit right now If you have 4 bits of information or 2 bits information you can describe? poor things right grab 0 0 0 1 1 0 & 1 1 you can apply that to DNA by using a TCC A CT ng using that formula there so there is a way to incorporate how information comes about by changes of the nucleotides by the fact that Information is in the system that’s relating to Shannon information so how is how does how does genetics and information correlate by this okay So I want to show you there’s a lot more to this and I think you’re realizing no, I I I’m not convinced that because of similarities and the genetic code for frickin just like a pub Hawker Chris I know I’m not amazed will not say anything so like You don’t know you don’t from an objective observer I am simply scat I don’t think you’re an objective I don’t not at all I mean sending me all the sources that you want to okay look, okay, so Chris I haven’t these do And I document it extensively so I’m not gonna go to your channel send me the information you want me to have please okay are you on Twitter? yes Chris get me his Twitter link send it shoot it over to me and I will send him all the information he desires and can You also send him the paper on the human chromosome or to fusion because that’s one of my more favorite papers I don’t fully understand it not gonna lie it’s a very complex paper but I get the concepts right It might sense me on Twitter I’m on my cell phone right now living I’m one of those people I deal with concepts I’m not a scientist right I don’t have the expertise that people have that write these papers but I think I’m pretty good at the concepts and So I understand the concepts of the human Torso in true fusion and I’ve actually asked dr. Thompkins for his data on it because he has this weird thing that he thinks is a DD X 11 l2 gene that Actually has a transcription across the fusion site but when you ask him for the reads for it None to be had so that to me is a really good evidence of why we have 46 chromosomes all other members of a minute I have 48 we would expect to find a human chromosome fusion we found it in the 80s we kind of knew it was there we were to sink whitson in the 90s We know the sick there we have relationship to all other primates because of this well to me all other members of memoria So it’s just a fingerprint it’s like again going back to my ballistics Scenario all this evidence and you’re like well that doesn’t really need anything it does it means an awful lot One thing is I did notice before the conversation was moving fast I could have misunderstood but I thought that there is at some point somebody said Even if we had so basically we’re fortunate to have any fossils or at least the number that we have because there it’s not an easy process to get them and I think somebody said following that they said it’s really just kind of a bonus or the icing on the cake in terms of evidence for evolution I think someone said maybe something To the effect of it’s like genetics is enough we wouldn’t even need the fossils really yeah I guess that yeah I’d always I don’t think we need the fossils either, okay My I might have misunderstood so like tell me if there’s like some lawyer I had crossed in the conversation where I thought Chris Boyer at one time gave a quote from maybe Francisco Ayala We’re frame 4i all always arguing something to be effective like the phylogenetic tree is just some sort of speculative like it’s it’s not well evidence among Hold on one second and so hold on one second hold on yeah you guys have had a lot of talk time it’s okay just getting one sec Yeah I mean I’ll be fair I’ll let you explain cuz I’m it I’m open to the fact that. I believe it’s Interpreted you guys mm-hm, so I think Chris Boyer was pressing back and he was saying We have you know hey this is an actual Person on your side even is saying that the evidence from the fossils is not at all compelling and so My thought was that Steve you and response said well we use all these different converging lines of evidence so Which seems though a little bit less consistent though if I’m understanding you right Because it’s like well wait a minute though it’s like if you are you saying that we have all these different lines of evidence Including the fossil evidence would you concede that so you’ll stick to your guns you’ll say we do have the fossil evidence Yes, okay, so ask me we’re Two seconds we have the evidence if there is never a fossil ever found evolution would still be a confirmed model it’s not contingent Contingent upon any fossil whatsoever so false was just an added bonus I think I think was the other Chris said and I guess now My I think there was a bit of confusion so um what I was saying was I think there were there were conversations that were kind of mashed together in that question the my point was that genetics genetics alone is sufficient appear evolution what would that mean that wouldn’t mean we would know what the gradations that the populations went through from one point to another we wouldn’t know how old you know this particular population is how old this particular clade is without fossils that’s why we have the fauces but but at the same time we have a number As Steve was saying we have a number of different lines of evidence that all point to the same conclusion So even though genetics already does the job for us we have all these successive lines of data that point to the same conclusion and that was the point that we were making I’d say okay thank you very much just want some clarification on that one thing that I that earlier in the conversations had come up and I’m confused that So let’s say this conversation initially starts and somebody says it seems a and this isn’t a criticism of the truth of the claim but it’s a I’m trying To understand now maybe it’s just for the sake of getting the definitions down but it seems almost unnecessary and redundant over why like why it would be worth pointing out when everyone obviously agrees that Allele frequencies change in populations from time and so when people when comes up early and it’s kind of like Hey you know that’s a proven thing I mean it seems like you maybe? there’s like some sort of Maybe you’re kind of thinking in case there are some sort of super simple creationists out there who wouldn’t even concede that maybe it is that why you say yeah dude I I kid you not I have had creationists tell me that they don’t accept you speciation now I have actually had dr. Jonathan Sarfati Tell me that if a creationist doesn’t accept speciation he doesn’t accept creationism he doesn’t understand creationism I believe his words were And I think he’s right on that you have to have speciation even for creationism now a fact you have to have a hyper hyper hyper ridiculously high prairie possible levels of speciation he’s never able to explain that part but yeah So I have had dealt with creationists and other people that don’t accept speciation they don’t accept they don’t know what a legal is Right I mean I know offense I don’t think Chris even knows what a what a gene is where an allele is or a variant of a gene and the the things that we have to like realize and we go into these discussions first of all none of us are experts besides jaxa a borderline expertise not an accredited expert But you have to realize is that if you’re going to be attacking these types of paradigms you need to come with a much better Quiver of arrows in your arsenal you need to come with something more than just well this one guy said this one no PhD, said this one person has a quote I’m telling you right here and now and I’ve said the same thing when it comes to atheist when they start quoting from a dictionary I hope I use the same thing if you quote from a dictionary or you use quote Minds you’re never gonna get far these kind of conversations you’re gonna look very very foolish You’re gonna look very very based level you look like you really have no Ability to articulate a coherent cogent argument and I’m telling you Chris as it as a friendly advice Stop doing it take some time on your own listen he’s gonna send you some information take some time on your own learn the arguments learn the terminology Once you have to resort to? arguing a quote line from somebody else that you probably don’t Chanin context it is never gonna go well for you just like I tell the atheist you brought you bring out a dictionary Conversation is gonna be done because I might as well talk to a child at least I at least I’ve quoted some evolutionary biologist I haven’t heard anything like I cannot all I mean you think you said Come on really you said we’re not expert you said we’re no-one’s experts here but when I give you? experts or at least scientists you those are honestly valid For quote mining when I give a quote it’s quote it’s quote mining is when you don’t understand the quote in context And understand I understand perfectly Clear we only have the vaguest idea on the genetic you are telling me the Darwinism is dead but Darwinism at least offers some mechanism with the explanatory power just explain to it to evolve from getting yes it does because you’ve also nothing else we talk about genetics okay that doesn’t explain anything let me show you the dead similarities in in it between organisms and looking at information in the genetic code that does not explain anything okay That might be evidence for common ancestry and I already said that I would concede that but what I want to know is how these how these species came about okay let me link my nutrition and you’ve offered nothing but you criticize Darwinism by saying it’s dead but you have nothing else better, no one does in 150 years we haven’t okay let me explain why that’s completely wrong but hang on one second look at these discussions people listen to okay and people when they listen to these discussions are they gonna look at a couple different things One of the reasons we haven’t used any quotes is because we don’t need them We actually have actually read the literature we have actually read books on this we’ve actually become had some college courses on it right I can quote a bunch of people if I need to I have citations for a lot of things I go to RG and get any citation I want for anything if I needed to he’s a walking encyclopedia right we don’t need it to to resort to To that unless we are trying to affirm a position that usually is under contention right These are not everything we’ve told you is not under contention in the scientific community if I’m arguing something that is contentious in the scientific community Then I’m more apt to give you a citation from a recognized expert in that area to help bolster or support my argumentation All you if all you have is is a quote from a scientist I don’t kill I care because I’m not arguing with that scientist I’m having a discussion I’m Arguing anything I’m simply scheduled are arguing yes this is arguing this is what arguing is? Whatever look you wanted to have a discussion you can call it whatever you want an argument a debate discussion whatever I’m simply skeptical of how we got the biological life on a naturalistic speciation hypothesis and that means nothing to me by saying that that literally means nothing yeah, okay And you say it’s universal it’s not I just told you that these mechanisms how they operate are Among debate amongst all scientists no, they’re not so you’re not even By the way oh yes it does it says debate among scientists it’s what I always good evolution okay I got it right here Yeah I’m gonna I’m gonna suggest you a few more books so the ranking was really good intro why Cuz Jackson we’d asked him what the the claim was that the quote was saying is a point of contention amongst ecology yes absolutely what I’m sorry lighting gay yeah Chris Boyer if you’re willing to read that quote because I you had mentioned There’s a point of contention among scholars and so Jackson we’d asked what was the point of contention well I’ll just read the very last portion one thing I’d point out is you guys like if he’s quoting I mean this is just saying if he’s quoting a scholar that is saying that this is a point of contention like that is not too shabby depending on what the point of contention is because they he’s giving us but I don’t think you’re gonna tickle eight with the point of contention and also the pet and you should also depend on you should also actually ask where that quote is coming from Frankly, I you know I don’t care if your scholar or not if you’re not if you’re not even bothering to do the research to get your book into a peer-reviewed study doesn’t mean much to me I agree with that and I also gotta say lookit if you’ve got to have a quote you need a House you need to have the skills to interpret that quote correctly and know Chris I mean? ideally you know I can do nothing I can do nothing I can know No, matter what I say no matter what I do no matter what the basic skills, oh and you saying that means nothing When you saying that doesn’t make it true we you have a you you haven’t done any you haven’t offered any mechanism that is better than Darwinism what you said is is dead basically you haven’t offered anything I will come back this I wanna press Christopher Chris for biblical historical skeptics just that is their like I know that be him maybe he’s not trying to publish in peer review published his research in peer-reviewed avenues but it like is there nothing that he could say with regard to those in the field because he’s probably got something miliaria with the field if he’s got a district look if you’ve gone through the process of a dissertation like he is there anything he can so there must be some things you could say so there definitely are but there’s a difference I mean when you look at his books he’s not writing scholarly books So I don’t know why they are being why people should bother using them in a scholarly discussion Okay, it would be like so for example it would be like me saying okay you know Arne Ross not it is not a scholar but you know I’m still gonna take his book and fluff lounge it around as though it’s scholarly it’s got good information in it but it’s not scholarly and I’d rather go to the actual peer-reviewed data because that is what is actually legitimate but unless I’m wrong though ARRIRAW doesn’t doesn’t have a he hasn’t gone through the comprehensive exams for to become a doctoral candidate in his field and he doesn’t have a dissertation but at the same time I stuff I still wouldn’t I still wouldn’t help Richard Dawkins is Free Press book the greatest show on earth as a scholarly book it’s a book lame as a fair point all right well no hold on a second that’s but that it’s a little bit I think too simple because there are things that Dawkins claims in his book so for example if Dawkins said in my experience the vast majority of biologists agree on acts like Dawkins is familiar with the field like that we just because it’s not peer-reviewed I we Certainly shouldn’t just say it’s worthless and I know you wouldn’t hopefully you wouldn’t go that you know I’m not saying I’m not saying It’s worthless what I’m saying what I’m saying is that we shouldn’t be holding Non scholarly work to a scholarly standard and treating it as though is scholarly work yeah and the reason We’re doing it yeah well they are because when they write these books they’re writing it for a lay audience, okay So it’s going to be not scholarly, okay in that regard Dawkins got stuff wrong his whole gene a meme thing not really well received any longer with The Selfish Gene except if you’re offended forever right he’s like the only person that still holds to it for some reason but you know people don’t really go to that model it’s, okay scientists will always come up with hypotheses that just are not right that’s how science works right doesn’t make him a bad scientist method a good scientist gets a lot of shit wrong that’s what makes a good scientist yeah they get it wrong and they admit that they’re wrong and then they move on and try and find a better explanation and the same as unless the old yeah unless they’re unless they’re old and grumpy and then they’re William G Deaver but I Still don’t I still think that if Dawkins there are claims the Dawkins could make in his non peer-reviewed book that would be you could be reasonable and accepting depending on what the our course yeah well I am but I would not but I’d be much more likely to accept them if you put those claims in a peer-reviewed paper Yes I got those reviewed by act by a bunch of other scholars yes not in a book for laymen yes I’m going to make the claims in a book for laymen but I’m far less likely to accept it in a book for laymen because it’s not a scholarly work the same as lawrence krauss is a universe from nothing wonderful book I love this river one of one of my favorite books on physics but it’s written for a layman and it is not a totem of scholarly academic work yep and no one should be treating it as such and no one should be quoting it as such either no one should be quoting it as an ultimate as a scholarly authority on that work they should be quoting his peer-reviewed papers and I told her real quick when it comes like Dawkins like the Dawkins scale I think it’s abysmal it’s not fair review it is not scholarly I think it’s right Dawkins philosophy is crap it’s all absolute crap I would never I would go to g-man about philosophy before the word Dawkins at this point I think it’s just her horrible brilliant biologist but I can’t stand that the effects that he’s had at philosophy because of his scale and his butchering of these things and try to normalize atheism I just can’t stand it Skeets causes nothing but confusion And so just because he writes something in a book does not make it something that you have to you can you you you you you have to adhere to in the field right because it’s great and here’s one of my favorite ones I can beaut Steve Steve was on on your position similar to your position at least Christopher So I just want to respond to you guys in as a group like So we agree that it’s not on the scholarly level of peer review No, problem like nobody you know I I didn’t claim that I don’t think Chris Boyer claimed that and so we nonetheless though depending on the claim I think it is Reasonable to believe in it if a scholar who’s familiar with the field says you know I mean it would be something you should wait you should I think give it reasonable credence depending on the claim that’s one thing I’m alarmed about is that when you say no I I have significantly less probability that I would give to it if it’s in this popular level book and it’s like well wouldn’t it depend on the claim though cuz I agree that there are some silly things put in popular level books but at the same time I well I mean all if you guys want I’ll let you have the last word on this quick issue and then there’s one last thing I wanted to bring up before we end if that’s, okay but I’ll let you respond to this because I yeah it’s it’s not that I don’t wouldn’t give it any credence I would take the claims as claims and look at and try and check them out but the problem is is that any non peer-reviewed book you can make any claim you want and At that point and at that point in a non scholarly work and you’re when you’re making claims I have no no Ability to really know the veracity of these things because unlike in a scholarly peer-reviewed work he doesn’t have to back all them up He can just tout a claim as a fact he can tell what he wants because he’s writing for laymen and it could be his educated opinion but that does not mean I should be taking what he says in a layman’s book at all at face value or at all without the skepticism and I’m definitely not going to be taking it very credibly in a layman’s book when I was up not without a bunch of peer-reviewed sources backing it up in that book I mean it’s same I have the same problem with it as I do with Christopher Hitchens as God is not great yeah the only thing I want to say on this and I’ll close it up then Jackson had the last word is that if somebody has something that they are saying that they have a quandary of when it comes evolution from the book right from the then they wrote I’m gonna take it as a novelty Oh! that’s interesting great there’s nothing ever you’re gonna find in a book that somebody has written that’s gonna falsify anything because if it did they would be putting it as a paper right So yeah it’s interesting yeah there’s some quirks here and there hey maybe this I found this to be interesting about astrophysics it’s like oh I didn’t know they had problems with this Oh, maybe there might be some changes in the fine-structure constant fascinating to me that would be really cool if we found that in one point of space the fine-structure constant had it was dis and we found it somewhere else had a slight variance because they would not expect that to be if they found something like that was they think they might have which I think they’ve resolved but at the time I was like that that’s a cool thing did it disprove the Big Bang No did have any effect on the Big Bang, no it was just a novelty that was like interesting but it went you know until people have something that’s, it’s actually up for review and it’s in some book novelty interesting but that doesn’t get you anywhere man anyone can write a book anyone can get it published well I promise not anyone can get your review done look at the last word so I’ll stick to my promise mr. Children’s line has six books what does that tell you yeah, so Chris your boy or the rest of you if you have anything else any sort of topics that you’d enjoy going over otherwise We’ve had a good Lengthy comprehensive conversation and so if you have any ideas that you do still want to broach like totally cool otherwise we maybe would do maybe five minutes of Q&A from people who might have questions and then wrap it up Well I’m all for going to straight to Q&A, so I don’t have anything more to add You’re not, okay sounds that my guess is Mike my gut says the rest of you’re on the same page so if anybody does have Questions in the Q&A would love to see them it helps me a little bit if you just put the at modern-day hysteria it helps me catch them in case the conversation is flowing with questions for people in the Q&A rather than for one of the debaters or I should say one of the discussed errs tonight And if we don’t have any then we’ll we’ll wrap it up and a little let everybody go I I did find one Athena goddess of wisdom is asking Steve if we’re gonna do an after-show Probably possibly if checking strike and Realistic nihilist want to join I don’t mind the popping in I have to like get a few things done and so I’m gonna probably Do what I did last night all put the thing in a Christopher you want to run it knock yourself out sure and well we’re all dolled up for ya So I do have one question this is for Chris Boyer and they said Do you like the song I heard it through the grapevine? I’m thinking they’re being facetious probably being silly but yeah honestly I’ll go out and say I think if I had to name a one of the greatest male vocalists of all time I would say hands-down was Marvin Gaye How he was good guy yeah I wouldn’t I wouldn’t contest that so wait Well I want to say thank you for everybody for coming on it’s thank you guys for your Patience as well with each other I know that it’s a little bit of a heated roller coaster once in a while but overall you know could be way worse so Also, it’s special thanks to Chris Boyer for being willing to get in the hot seat and yeah can I forgiven I’m sorry to interrupt if you’re gonna close can I say one thing before before you do close it out one thing I just want to say before you do that it’s just yeah any of those who are watching thank you to you as well and we would love for you to subscribe as we have more discussions coming up in the future and Chris boy yeah absolutely what’s Oh, no just real quick I appreciate you having me on I appreciate the discussion I’m completely open to the literature if anybody that’s you know can provide any anybody in the discussion tonight that can provide any literature you can email it to me at Christopher Paul Boyer at gmail.com Christopher Paul Boyer gmail.com I’m more than happy to so look at what you have I Am from a scientific perspective I think even I think There’s good reason to be skeptical of of evolution on the Darwinian schoen I know you guys don’t really agree with Darwin Per se but I do get a lot of people that that that do so when I when I have these types of discussions That’s what they appeal to in the and I think that they appeal to that is because that is the best naturalistic explanation that we have because there just isn’t anything else to explain the diversity of complex biological life that we have here and and if you do have something better than that because everybody’s here has agreed that Darwinism is basically dead if you do have something better than that then please by all means share it with me I’ll read it I’m not opposed to that whatsoever but what I have seen so far in the literature and You can discredit it if you want and tell me I haven’t read enough I’m not educated enough or whatever but I think scientists agree that there just is no explanation for how we get the biological life that we have here and You know Darwinism is is is the best thing that we’ve had in 150 years we have nothing better it’s moved on a lot since then but we still have nothing that is gonna explain have the explanatory power and That’s needed to explain these these this type of speciation the weak that we see so if you have anything I’m more than happy to to read it but I the confidence here in these mechanisms that you guys are saying as laymen I think everybody said they’re pretty much laymen is just not what I see So far in the and the and the literature that. I have have read so that’s all I would say please share it with all so Christopher Boyer is open to those links and given that Christopher Boyer was one on three tonight if you guys are ok with it being the last word and we will sign out thanks so much for your camaraderie today and we hope all of you have a great night thanks for tuning in really appreciate it and keep sending out the reasonable from the unreasonable goodnight

8 thoughts on “What Is the Definition of Evolution?”

  1. Oof, that was a pummeling. You said in the video that you're not interested in evolution so you haven't really looked into it much, but you then make it out like you want to know more and claim you'll read anything they want to give you. Curious though, have you looked into what they said?

    If you still believe a reptile is going to hatch a bird, you've definitely have not been reading into what actual evolution is like. They mentioned it many times before you said that. It's very small, continuous changes over a huge period of time. You seem to make it pretty clear that you will only look into things regarding evolution if they support your view of it. Which it sounds like is the creationist view of evolution which is very wrong and has been debunked over and over again.

  2. 84 million years of breeding caused Some grandkids to become Bats and others to be Whales!!!!! That’s a fact Chris!!!! 🤦‍♂️They aren’t Darwinists they are denialist. They are the same people that will deny all evidence for God but all the problems that exist for Darwinism they will deny.Honestly this group of clowns live in their own world and act like everything they say is fact because they cheerlead for each other. You could name 1000 Scientists that disagree with neo-Darwinism and they will deny, deny and deny. How dumb is it they think it’s a strong argument to say 99% of evolutionary biologists agree with evolution? No crap! 99% of theologians agree that God exists.There is 1000’s of peer reviewed papers supporting this. So if they were consistent they would all agree that God is a fact!Yeah right! I spent hours back and forth with that Jackson guy and he just refuses to admit any problems with evolution. He was at least respectful in his writings. Then he made a video about a Creationists who was fired for being a creationist. The creationist won a lawsuit against the School because they clearly discriminated against him.I commented that no matter what we believe we should all stand against discrimination.He went straight into denial again.Honestly you did these guys a favor by humoring them. They constantly vomit fallacy after fallacy and then blame you for committing fallacy.This is what they do all the time and then they make videos congratulating themselves. Your a better man than me because I wouldn’t have had nearly the patience listening to their Nonsense. God bless you.

  3. You need to identify a mechanism that prevents speciation, contrary to the evidence, present your research for peer review and collect your Nobel prize!
    Good luck!

  4. When someone states evolution is a scientific fact the first question is what do you mean by evolution micro or macro and yes there's a huge difference.
    Secondly, the Law of Biogenesis is Scientific fact. Life can not come from non life in nature and even those who believe in evolution acknowledge this like
    Martin Moe, admitted: “A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life” (1981, p. 36, emp. added). Evolutionist George G. Simpson, perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the 20th century, stated, “[T]here is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell” (Simpson and Beck, 1965, p. 144, emp. added). In their textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Moore and Slusher wrote: “Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis” (1974, p. 74, emp. in orig., ital. added).
    *Some will say yes but that has nothing to do with evolution but actually it does because macro evolution cannot even get off the Ground according to science* You can read school textbooks all day and look at speculations but as evolution believers tell Christians now we Christians say Where's Your evidence.. They don't have it. The Information in DNA etc is Intelligent And intelligence requires Intention Purpose and Design and Will

  5. i sort of enjoyed the talk. boyer you need to remember john stuart mill "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that."

    So I think you need to better research the other side all the primary mechanisms of evolution “Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations and Gene Flow”. If you would have done that when they claimed (rather arrogantly for how uneducated they are about the subject) that “Darwinism is dead” that is a stupid claim. Darwin’s theory was that of natural selection (the primary mechanism for large population evolutionary changes) still holds completely true and valid (in that community im not debating at this time with you lol). Now, had you been more informed you could have easily swatted them aside with “a strictly Darwinian view of evolution is no longer the case however natural selection is still a bedrock foundation which the theories of evolution have been built”, and then they would have to do more than a mere arrogant assertion (that is no form of argument) that something simply does not exist without a mechanism of disproval.

    Then the morality question that you got into is an equally impossible proof for either side. You have two sides. In the god side, god exists and created life and gave morality to that life, and in this universe the morality came from god. So to have morality is a proof god exists.

    Then the non god side. There is no got we have morality and as such with no god but for morality to exist then that is the proof that there is no god as morality developed independent a deity and as such morality proves that god doesn’t exist.

    Both sides of the morality argument always debase back to fundamental world view (watch sam harris and Jordan Peterson when they argue it they go round and round both “proving” the others side depending upon worldview”.

    Asides from this all the sophistic non-argument fallacies abounded in their arguments (drove me crazy to listen to the nonsense argument of normativity. It is relating to a standard that already exists and never addresses the start of the standard.

  6. Hey Chris,
    Just continuing to check out your content…
    I'm familiar with Steve, and to be fair, I don't see him as excessively vitriolic, and I do somewhat appreciate his academic sensability, but obviously, non-sequitur show is driven by militance. Moreover, this typical position is a passive-aggressive tactic that is the elusive "shadowboxing" non-substantive obfuscation and denial of normative tenants that are associated with the secular position being postulated. I was just discussing this a couple of months ago at SES's Apologetics Conference in Charlotte. In addition; I've got many resources from atheists/ agnostics of whom many I appreciate… with Hitch being among my favorite… and he would pin Steve back from this somewhat nonsensical stance.
    Steve's fond of this sliding tactic used with Hovind and other examples that I've seen from him, and other popularized YouTube atheists who have collaborated and huddled to come up with their own modified terminology that is highly personalized (semantic ambiguity being common). For them to slide away from in referencing Darwinism as antiquated, is nonsense because right now in upper level and post- graduate secular university classes that I just transferred to Liberty from, PhD professors regularly reference Darwinism as foundational. So this denial is feigned for the effect of diffusion in polemicism. Indeed, Hitch would say that Steve doesn't have the guts of his convictions (I'm reserved about using such assertive references but it's emphasis is appropriate). Finally the reference to Origin of Species (and… "preservation of favoured races") and questioning about whether you've read its entirety is a tactic of diversion because one doesn't have to in order to document what the book says… and that is undisputed. This is a favorite approach by Street epistemology from University of Portland's philosophy department.
    Again, your demeanor is to be appreciated and you handled yourself cordially… and especially within the back and forth of debate, this is to be respected.
    God bless
    PS… your reservation in a previous video about indicting MacArthur as a false teacher was wise.
    Contemporary theology is in diminishing peril… and demonstrably so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *