Evolution on Trial | MadeByJimbob Vs Craig/FTFE
02:48:57 Share

Why is life better with American Family Insurance?

Because every policy comes with something very special. A trusted agent who's there to help protect your dreams by finding the right coverage at the right price. Save up to 23% when you bundle home and auto. American Family Insurance. Get a quote and find an agent at AmFam.com. Products not available in every state. Visit AmFam.com to learn how discounts may apply to you. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. and its operating company, 6000 American Parkway, Madison, Wisconsin.

No purchase necessary.

Hey, everybody. Today we're debating evolution on trial, and we are starting right now with Craig's opening statement. Thanks for being with us, Craig. The floor is all yours. Hey, glad to be back once again. Always fun.

So we're here to talk about evolution. You know, that thing your immune system does every time a virus mutates. Not some nonsense about fish hooking up with a monkey at a nightclub because that's not how this works. Evolution is just this wild concept where living things adapt over generations to better survive in their environments.

Totally radical, right? Almost like it's just biology doing biology. We see it happening in real time, like in controlled lab experiments where bacteria literally evolved to survive in specific solutions. They don't sit down for a team meeting. Nature just filters out the losers. Or how about the London underground mosquitoes? They evolved into a completely different breed just from chilling in the subway for a few decades.

Turns out isolation and pressure make more than diamonds. They make brand new mosquitoes that can't even breed with their surface cousins anymore. That's speciation. And it's not hypothetical, it's literally happening within our lifetimes.

If that's not enough, let's not forget about the mountains of fossil evidence. Not just a few bones lying around, entire chronological novels written in rock, showing clear transitions from species to species. Tic-a-tac didn't just crawl out of the water to stretch its legs for fun, it was a snapshot of change. So no, evolution isn't a game of genetics, spin the bottle between fish and monkeys. It's the observable, testable, relentless process that explains why you have wisdom teeth, a tailbone, and a cousin who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Many times people that I'm debating on evolution just spend the entire debate not understanding what evolution is. The fact is evolution is a process that goes on constantly. It is happening now. We see it in real time. It has allowed us to be the people we are. It is simply adapting to environmental pressures.

And that doesn't just mean having more babies makes a better species. That could mean a species having to reduce itself to less than a thousand in its entire population to be able to survive the environmental pressures. Evolution is...

biology in in progress it is seeing biology adapt to the world that it lives in and the people the things that survive those pressures those adaptations are the ones that carry on that's why we're taller now than we used to be that's why our brains are bigger now than they used to be apart from flat earthers i guess uh

Evolution isn't just some crazy theory. It is a fact of the world we live in, and it is how we have come to be the biggest, most intelligent species on this planet. So the...

evidence for evolution. There's mountains of it. So if Jim Bob has evidence that evolution doesn't happen, then I'll be glad to hear that. But I certainly hope that Jim Bob doesn't just strawman what evolution actually is and argue against something he's made up, like every single person I've ever spoken to about evolution does. So yeah, thank you very much for having me on, James. Glad to hear what Jim Bob has to say. Thank you, and...

Before we kick it over to Made by Jim Bob, I want to give you a quick couple of housekeeping things. Folks, if you did not know at the bottom right of your screen, Andrew Wilson will be taking on Apostate Profit. That's on April 28th. That is at Asheville, North Carolina. You don't want to miss it. If you're nearby, grab tickets, which are linked in the description box below. There's an option for free tickets.

So check out that link. And if you're like, hey, I would love to do that and come for a free ticket, but I can't make it. I'm in Australia or England or Washington. You can watch it live here at the Modern Day Debate YouTube channel. So hit that subscribe button. And with that, we'll kick it over to Made by Jim Bob for his opening. Thanks very much. The floor is all yours, Jim Bob.

All right. Thank you very much. Um, so I guess the question is what, uh, what is evolution? Um, it's said to be the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Now, I like to point out that it's often claimed that evolution inside of natural, uh,

biology in the natural world, it's in the natural sciences, it's referred to as a scientific theory. My contention with evolution is that it's actually not a valid scientific theory because for something to be a scientific theory, there's actually a pretty strict criteria to call something a valid scientific theory. So not only do I have contentions with evolution and its larger claims, which goes outside of the bounds of simply adaptation, but

Their larger claims over time are unjustified. But even pinpointing the fact that... Hello? I'm still here, right? Yes. I think we have a connection issue. So, there we go. I think we lost you at, I think you had said the word pinpointing. Okay. Well...

So only about five to 10 seconds. Okay, great. That's fine. All right. So I was talking about the scientific theory. There needs to be a criteria for calling something a scientific theory inside of natural science. I said that evolution doesn't make its way through the scientific method.

For those of you who are wondering what that is, it starts with an observation in reality. It starts with a – you then ask a question about what you're observing, and then the question leads to what's causing what you're observing. Then it leads to an experiment. Then you have to actually do the experiment again.

You have to manipulate things, and then you come to some conclusion, and only after the conclusion can you develop what's called a scientific theory, which is essentially an inductive conclusion to a high percent of likelihood until proven otherwise. Now, I'm saying that evolution doesn't even make its way through this. It doesn't even have a viable hypothesis.

Um, the only arbiter for competing hypotheses, that is to say, Craig is saying, well, do you have any other explanation? Uh, the only way to, for two competing hypotheses to exist inside of natural science is experiment. But the fact that evolution doesn't even provide an experiment is sit, it's sitting outside of the bounds of what's considered a, a scientific theory. It's basically a massive story, a hunch, a post addiction, uh,

justification, you know, you're looking back in time, you're imagining what could have happened, and then you go and try to find evidence for the story that you've told, right? So it's all confirmation bias. If the observation in evolution is variation of organisms, right?

If Craig wants to try to take us through the scientific method and prove that evolution is a scientific theory, I would want to know his observation. Most of the time they say variation of life itself, right? That's the observation. Now, the assumed cause, I'm still waiting for any evolution proponent to tell me the assumed cause because that's how science works. So my argument today is pretty simple. Premise one is a scientific theory is the product of the scientific method.

Premise 2: Evolution cannot be run through the scientific method. Evolution is not a valid scientific theory.

So what is it? Well, it's a story. It's a hunch. It's basically looking at reality as it is and making an assumption about a past that you can't observe and then trying to find some sort of supportive evidence for the past you can't observe. And that's pretty much all it is. Now, conflating adaptation at the local level, at the molecular level, looking at what bacteria does and doesn't has nothing to do with the claim that

Every animal we see today comes from a previous kind of animal or a different population altogether that it all branches from. There's actually no evidence of this. I can give a hypothetical to demonstrate. Craig wouldn't even know how to delineate between a fossil he found that matches his hunch and a fossil he found that doesn't match his hunch. In fact, when they point to notice how when they when they bring up, say, transitional fossils,

There is nothing that's not a transitional fossil. So when they say we found a transitional fossil and I ask, are there any fossils that aren't transitional? He says no. So the distinction, it doesn't matter. So if everything's a transitional fossil, then finding one, you might as well pick up anything out of the ground and call it a transitional fossil because under evolution, it has to be transitional. That doesn't really tell us anything. It doesn't tell us

how things change. It just says a story that things change. So that's another problem evolution has is when you tell the story from a broad view, it sounds like a compelling story. It sounds almost correct.

When you ask granular questions about what is actually occurring that makes this long process do its thing, they're at a loss for words. They basically just say it happens. Well, it just happened. Over time, it happened. Clearly, it happened. Well, I don't even think Craig or any other evolution proponents could actually tell me what happened. Like, what is actually happening?

So there's a famous mathematician and astronomer who stated the following in regards to astronomy. He said, I think it also applies to evolution. He said, as far as hypotheses are concerned, let no one expect anything certain from astronomy, which cannot furnish it, lest except that as the truth idea is conceived for another purpose and depart from the study a greater fool than when he entered. This applies to evolution because you don't have...

the ability to manipulate anything inside the evolution paradigm. All you have is the ability to manipulate things at the adaptive level, at the molecular level, at the local level. This says nothing, this demonstrates nothing about the macro, what's often called macroevolution. It says nothing about what happened. It says something about what you can observe happening. These are two different things.

I would argue that evolution itself as a large worldview is almost religious in the sense that what it does is it takes what might be true at the particular level, and then it says it's true about the whole, which is a basic composition fallacy.

This essentially is the argument against evolution being a proper scientific theory. Evolution cannot produce a viable hypothesis, and it cannot be taken through the scientific method. Scientific theories are the product of the scientific method. They are not the beginning of the scientific method, and what we'll hear tonight is a bunch of beginning stories, then some supporting analogies or evidence to try to buttress the assumption. Well, the assumption is what's in question. I'm not granting the assumption.

Got it. And with that, I want to let you know a couple of quick housekeeping things. Folks, first, very exciting to share that Modern Day Debate is helping promote and participate in, as I'll be flying out to be the moderator, this epic debate between Andrew Wilson and AP on whether or not Christians should be Zionists. It's going to be in Asheville, North Carolina. You don't want to miss it.

Check out the link in the description box. Grab tickets now. There's even an option for a free ticket. Highly encourage you. It's going to be amazing. You don't want to miss it. As well as, very excited that for that particular debate, we are doing a fundraiser. So as you can see at the bottom right of the screen, LensFundraiser.com.

These lenses will be used at that debate as well as future debates between Modern Day Debate and Uncensored America. For example, our upcoming collaboration series called Outnumbered. We're going to use them over and over. Check out the GoFundMe link at the top of the live chat and the top of the description box. You don't want to miss it. Help us make these debates a reality. And thanks for your support. With that, gentlemen, thank you very much. The floor is all yours for open dialogue.

So, Craig. Oh, sorry. You can go ahead. Yeah, I think you kind of have some misunderstandings about what a scientific theory is in relation to the scientific method. It's not just a product of the scientific method. A scientific theory is something that is well substantiated with a body of facts.

including observable experimentation and following the scientific method. The scientific method is just one aspect of having a scientific theory. The scientific method is itself just a method of helping us determine if a hypothesis has been falsified or not. It's not...

the entirety of the scientific theory. So I think some misunderstandings of terminology there help towards your confusion. Okay. Are you saying that a scientific theory is necessary, or the scientific method is necessary for a theory, but other things can be included? Yeah, it's part of. The scientific method is not...

The scientific method is something that we use to try

try and falsify a hypothesis. That's just all it is. A scientific theory is a different thing. Using the scientific method as part of our experimentation process to then get, okay, so we now have a scientific theory. Yeah, it's part of it. But you were like, well, it's the product of the scientific method, which is just kind of a misinterpretation. Well, I'm asked, I guess, well, I want to just clarify, is it possible to develop a scientific theory without the scientific method?

scientific method is what you use to try and falsify a hypothesis. So if you want to have a hypothesis in your scientific theory, then you need to use the scientific method to get to that. But you're saying, right, is this one thing that slots in here? You're not understanding what the scientific method is. I'm asking you- The scientific method isn't just a thing that slots in- Greg, you didn't answer. Yeah, let me finish what I'm saying.

The scientific method isn't just something that slots in as part of this or that. It is a process. It is a tool. So all I'm saying is it's incorrect to say the scientific theory is just a product of... I didn't say just. I didn't say just. You did. That was the word you said. Craig. But anyway, I just wanted to clear that up. You're gish galloping, bro. You're gish galloping. No, I'm literally not. I just wanted to clear that up. And Jim, Bob, if...

When I give you an explanation, you say I'm gish-scalloping. That's not my fault you don't understand. I just did directly answer your question. The question was this. Can you produce a scientific theory without the scientific method? I didn't get a clear answer on that. I'll put it in premise form, Craig. It

I've already answered that. Asked and answered. Interrupting. Asked and answered. We can move on because I've asked and answered that. Okay, yes or no? I'm just saying I've asked and answered and I refuse to repeat the answer. One at a time, gentlemen. I have to break it into one or two minute segments. Just to be clear, for the purposes of this debate, I absolutely refuse to continually answer the same question. I'm going to break it into one or two minute segments. Okay, just going to... Okay, who asked the most recent question?

I'm asking a question and it's a yes or no question and I didn't get an answer. And so I'll ask it a different way. Okay. Okay. Wait, hold on one sec. Okay. Craig, you feel like you answered it?

Yes, my entire spiel that I just gave there answered the question. So now the conversation can move on. If Jim Bob wants to continually answer the question, ask the question over and over. I will just say ask and answer. That's it. We just want to just to see. OK, so you're saying all I have to say is just, yep, I answered it. OK, I'm going to say, yeah, I've answered it. OK, all right. I'll just take the. You guys honestly are just I appreciate your enthusiasm, but need you to take it.

Take a deep breath. So what we're going to do is break it into one minute segments. All right. So Craig said that he answered it. So Jim Bob will give you a chance for 60 seconds uninterrupted. Laura is all yours. Let's see. So I'm just click ask to unmute. So that way you can speak. So there should be a little window that pops up on your zoom window. Okay. Can you hear me? Yep. Ready for it. Okay.

Well, in all of those words, I'm going to take it as a yes that a scientific theory needs to actually go through the scientific method. Otherwise, what are we talking about? Further, if there's two hypotheses, I would argue that the only way to arbitrate between two competing hypotheses is exactly that, the experiment, which is the scientific method. So the reason I asked Craig...

Is a scientific theory something that has to be at the tail end of the scientific method? And I didn't get a clear answer on that. Asked and answered. You're just going to please answer it again for the audience. No, no, I refuse to ask a question. OK, that's fine. That's fine if you don't want to answer. OK, so I've read I've already answered it. Everybody heard me answer it, Jim. But you didn't understand the answer. That's a you. OK, would you say that evolution is a scientific theory?

It's 100% is a scientific theory. It's a stone cold, brilliant definition of a scientific theory. Would you like me to explain to you how it is a scientific theory? No, no, no, no, not really. In fact, I'm going to explain how it's a scientific theory. No, no, no, no, this is my cross-examination. No, there's no cross-examination. You asked the question.

There's no cross-examination of your affirmative position? You've just asked the question and I'm gonna answer it. It's a series of questions. I do apologize at the beginning of your sentence. He's not allowing me to run a line of questions. So why is a motion assigned to me? So,

I do. We could do this where it's a cross exam where each of you gets 10 minutes to ask the other questions. Craig, I'm not done with my sentence for crying out loud. If I'm still in the middle of a sentence, can you allow me to finish my sentence? All right. Dear gosh, what is wrong with you? All right. If I'm still talking, like, why are you... I'm going to just start talking while James is midway to have a sentence. Like, shut your trap and let me finish. So, both of you.

We're going to do 10 minutes across exam. That's one theoretical. We could keep going with open dialogue, but it seems like neither of you really wants to allow the other to ask a series of questions. We could do one minute segments, just back and forth, 60 seconds for one guy, 60 seconds for the other. What are you guys wanting to do?

Well, I'd very much like an open conversation if Jim Bob is willing to. Okay, we got you. We got you. Open conversation. That's the answer. Not if Jim Bob is blah, blah, blah. All right, Jim Bob, short answer. What do you want to do?

If it's an open conversation in conversations about in debates, have questions, have cross-examination in the conversation. So if I'm going to ask, do you want to do Jim Bob? I want to cross-examine. I want to cross-examine his affirmative, which is a fucking debate. That's what a fucking debate is. You want to cross-examine. Great. OK, so it sounds like you guys are not willing to meet in the middle. Like, Craig, are you willing to do any sort of cross-examine?

Yeah, if we can actually agree on some terms, the problem is that Jim Bob is trying to define terms. So yes, how long? If you want to get a fucking debate on, let's go. I'm cool. I want the debate. That's why I'm saying let's just have the debate. But Jim Bob doesn't want to. So what we're going to do is

we'll do five minutes where Jim will ask questions to Craig and then we'll switch it where Craig will ask questions to Jim Bob for five minutes. Fair? Does that mean I get to answer the questions though? If they're yes or no, yes.

No, uh, here we go. Five minutes. The timer is set. Jim Bob, now's your chance to ask questions. Okay, Craig, you said that evolution is a scientific theory, okay? Would you say evolution being a scientific theory can be run through the scientific method? 100%, yes. Okay, so if evolution can be run through the scientific method, can you give me the observation that you start with? Uh, let me see, I've got it all written down here. Um...

Observation. Bacteria sometimes develop new traits or resistance under pressure. Okay. And so if the scientific method asks a question about what you're observing, you're observing bacteria do a thing, and then what's the question you're asking in the scientific method about that observation? Can we observe evolution happening in a lab environment across generations?

No, that's not, that's not the, that's another observation. You're restarting. No, it's not. Can we observe is an observation, Craig. Yes, it's a question. Is it a question? It has a question mark at the end. Okay, okay. Enough. Didn't he ask, didn't he ask, can we observe?

Yes, I said I said this question. You're not asking the question. I'm answering the question. I'm trying to answer the question. If you could allow me the courtesy of answering. OK, go ahead. Like you're burning up time. Can you observe?

Yeah. Can you observe evolution happening in the environment of first generations? Why are you asking a question? It's been asked three times. Just directly to the answer. Okay. Yeah. So, in the scientific method, the observation is the beginning. Then you ask a question about the phenomenon you're observing. Yes. Notice when I asked...

Notice when I asked Craig what, you know, because you're leading to the hypothesis, what causes the phenomenon you're observing. Notice when I asked what the question is, Craig went back to another observational question. Now he's back at the start of the scientific method. No, incorrect. The question can be an observation. It doesn't need to not be an observation. The question can be, oh, can I see this happening?

That can absolutely be a question. Yeah, that's another question. The question can also be, why is this happening? Yeah, the question could be whatever I want it to be, Jim Bob. You don't understand how the scientific method works. Now, the next step would be the hypothesis. No, I'm in the middle of talking. The next step would be a hypothesis. The hypothesis would be if E. coli is grown for thousands of generations, it will evolve to become better adapted to its environment.

That is a direct hypothesis coming from the question that was answered. The next step from that would be making a prediction based on the hypothesis. You can shake your head all you like, but I'm the one with the physics degree. The next step after the hypothesis is you can make a prediction. The prediction would be if I put the E. coli in a solution that would stop it being able to breed itself because of poison, then the...

So if you poison something and it dies, that's evolution? I haven't finished my sentence. You're just gish-galloping, bro. I haven't finished my sentence. You're gish-galloping. No, I'm not. If I'm going to finish what I'm saying, and that's the problem. You listened to half of what I said. I want my time back, then. The prediction is if I put the E. coli in a solution that is poisonous to it. Wow.

Will it evolve to adapt to be able to overcome that poisonous solution? That's a different hypothesis than evolution. No, it's not. That is a prediction from the hypothesis. Let me answer. Dude, this is absurd. We're going to go to the next. We're going to go. All right. What's your question, Jim Bob, that you'd like to ask?

I wanted Craig to take me through one observation to a hypothesis. I'm doing that. I'm literally doing the load. Craig, shut up so we can actually get this. I'm just giving Jim Bob a chance to say what he was asking. I want a simple observation that leads to a hypothesis. Craig went from observing one thing to then introducing poison. Okay? Observing... That's a prediction. Can you control yourself? That's a different observation, dude.

It's not, it's a prediction! That- for a different observation. No, for the same observation! Okay, so naturally, in natural science, do you see bacteria getting poisoned?

- Do you? - Yes! - Okay, cool. - Absolutely! That's what medication is! - That's a different observation than you originally said. - No, it's not! - Yes, it is. - Right. If you will give me just two minutes uninterrupted. - Oh, let's just give you five minutes. Yeah, yeah, give me a few more minutes. - You asked me the question, Jim Bob, can I take you through the scientific method of an observation? - Yeah. - I am doing exactly that. - What's the observation? - The observation is bacteria sometimes develops new traits or resistances under pressure.

That's great. Do we agree? That's an observation. Great. Now the next question in the scientific method is what causes that? No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, no, it's not. What else would the question be? The question doesn't have to be what causes that. What's the hypothesis? A question. That comes after. Yeah. Jim Bob, you ask me a question. You don't let me answer.

So you ask the question, what is the question? The question is, can we observe evolution happening in a lab experiment across generations? Right. That is the question I have developed from my observation.

Now we have the hypothesis. The hypothesis is if E. coli is grown for thousands of generations, it will evolve to become better adapted to environment. That is a logical progression from the observation question hypothesis. The next part is the prediction. The prediction is if you put the E. coli in a solution that is poisonous to it, it will adapt.

adapt to the pressures and overcome the poison. The next step is the experiment. And this experiment has been going on since 1988 and is still ongoing today. - Adaptation. - Is in fact the longest, the longest ongoing experiment. - It's a Gish Gallop King. - I said two minutes. You said you'd give me two minutes.

So adaptation... Not just galloping, answer my question. Craig, observing adaptation and calling it evolution are two different things. That is evolution. No, it's not. Then why are you using different words?

Adaptation is part of evolution. Adaptation is evolution. Evolution is adapting to your environment. James, this is insane. This is insane. We do have to have the actual questions. So what was your question, JB? If adaptation is one thing and evolution is a different thing, then you can't make them synonymous exactly, okay? So when you say I watch something adapt, you're watching something at the local level adapt.

like change to some sort of inputs, okay? This is not what's in question tonight. What's in question tonight is some sort of transmutation. It's some sort of a macro change back in time, evolution, the story of evolution, of how animals and populations diversified over time at the macro, large-scale animals, sex, sexual selection, sexism,

All of that, right? We're not looking at a Petri dish. All you're doing for the audience is saying, I looked at something change and react to stimuli. Therefore, what?

Okay. So, um, there is no difference between macro micro evolution. Evolution is evolution. You trying to separate them is a disingenuous tactic by evolution deniers, right? It's not a difference. The fact that it can happen in a short time or a long time is the same thing. The evidence of it happening is that we can make it happen in a short time. Um,

We can also go to the London underground mosquitoes who literally became a different species, unable to interbreed with other mosquitoes within decades. Why are you calling it a mosquito? I'm in the middle of a sentence. So it's a mosquito, but I'm in the middle of a sentence because of the pressures. Uh,

Of the environment they are. Evolution is literally adapting to environmental pressures. That is the definition of evolution. Adaption is part of the process. Okay, Craig, if adaptation and observing adaptation at the local level is evolution, why would you need to produce an experiment if the observation is identical to the term evolution, dummy?

Because we have to test a hypothesis, dummy. No, if... Look, do you understand the problem you're in? I have no... There is no problem. I have no problem. You are the one that doesn't understand the evolution. You are the one that is disingenuously trying to separate macro and micro evolution like they're different things. Where we basically break this up. Craig, you have five minutes to ask questions of Jim Bob. Okay. Um...

I mean, I'm here to offer evidence for evolution, but Jim Bob is trying to separate the things. I don't really have questions for him because I was here to answer his questions about evolution. You mean a cross-examination? He hasn't offered an alternative to evolution. That's question big.

No, it's not. It's part of the debate. There's no question begging there. In a debate, both parties have to present evidence for their case, right? My case is evolution is real. I've presented evidence for that. Jim Bob hasn't presented evidence for an alternative. This is more like your more opening statement, but this is a good time to ask questions to Jim Bob.

Yeah, that's the point. I don't have any questions for Jimbo because he hasn't presented an alternative for me to cross-examine. So if Jimbo could present an alternative to evolution, then I could absolutely 100% ask him questions about that alternative. The thing is, I don't know what his position is apart from I don't understand evolution. I have evidence for evolution and I can explain evolution to him, but he's not even accepting the fact that evolution, there's no difference between micro and macro. He's just going, oh, well, that's different. And I say it's different.

I mean, what questions can I ask him? Please, Jim Bob, present your case for an alternative to evolution. Well, first of all, presenting an alternative would appeal to the scientific method being that the only arbiter for two competing hypotheses is an experiment in natural science. But if I can't even make, if you can't even take me, take evolution through the scientific method. Dude, I'm talking.

But if you can't get that, did you remember? I think you did that just now. You can't control himself. No, I'm just saying, Jimbo, I did that just now. Do you not remember? Okay, so Craig also just said that observing adaptation at the bacterial level is observing evolution. If adaptation, observation of adaptation is identical to evolution, then you're observing the theory that you're trying to prove

by just naming it evolution. Now, if all you had to do, Craig, is observe bacteria, you wouldn't need to craft a scientific theory because your observation is literally the name of the theory, evolution. If you just want to make assumptions, yeah, but the fact is in science, we like to

observe something, ask a question about it, form a hypothesis, predict from that hypothesis, and then test that hypothesis. Because we don't just go, oh, we saw a thing. We saw it happening. So therefore, that's that. As in science, we like to go through the scientific method. And Jim Bob, you are lying to everybody watching right now by saying I couldn't take you through the scientific method when I did exactly that. You not understanding the scientific method and disagreeing with the scientific method is a you problem. Okay, cool. So, um...

This is the thing. If observing bacteria change and react to stimuli is evolution, then it's unnecessary to craft a hypothesis or a theory because you're literally observing the thing you're calling evolution everywhere. No, it's not because you do that to do science. You don't just go, oh, wow, that's big brain stuff. I'm talking...

You don't just do it. You don't just look at it and go, well, that's that. Even if you think you've observed the thing happening and you call it that thing, you still do tests on that thing to make sure it is that thing. You go through the scientific method like I have with you many times already, Jim Bob, and you have just denied it. Okay. Here, let's take a different approach here. Let's take like a cat. Okay. A cat. Would you agree that a cat is a sort of universal category of an animal?

A cat is a universal category of an animal. Yeah, a cat's not a dog, right? No, a cat's not a dog. Okay, it's a genetically separate species. Was there a time under the evolutionary view where a cat, as we know it today, actually wasn't a cat? That it just didn't exist?

Yes, cats and dogs and you and I all have common ancestors. Okay, so if the common ancestor for a cat was one thing, how do you prove, how do you look at bacteria changing and come to the conclusion that there was once an animal that's not a cat that the splintering from, the fractioning from became a cat, where a cat emerged from this process? How do you extrapolate the one to the other?

We look at the evidence we have, which is the fossil records that we do have, even if they're not 100% complete. We look at what we do have. We form hypotheses from all the information that we have. And we go, well, if this is what we think evolution is, then we can test it and see that we can change a species. Now, when you put E. coli into a solution that is poisonous to it, it literally becomes a

different species of E. coli with different DNA and different attributes to survive within that solution that was previously poisonous to it. I'm in the middle... If you want me to get through an explanation... You can't gish-gallop, bro. No, it's not gish-galloping. It is me having an explanation to Jimbo, but the problem is you don't let me get to the end...

And then interrupt. What did I ask you? Just be quiet. You asked me if I can explain to you how we can have, well, a, what was before a cat and say, well, there's now a cat and then relate that to bacteria. Okay. Yeah. Yes, it is. Now, more clearly, how do you look at the local level of change, which I call adaptation to external stimuli, right? Evolution. That's what evolution is. Stop. How do you look at that event?

and then extrapolate that a cat right through fossils now how do you extrapolate that a cat comes from things that are not cats because we look at the fossils that we do have the fossils that don't what do you mean how we take fossils you just look at them look am i allowed to answer the question right jim but we know when you ask a question that's when you stop talking and let every person speak

Cool. So, yes, we look at fossils, we examine them, we compare them to other skeletons and stuff that we have of different creatures. We compare them to other fossil records that we have. We do experiments on the DNA and stuff that we have within them. And we compare them to what is now and we make inferences and we use that as part of our hypothesis.

to then form predictions and do tests. Now, here's the thing. We don't have time machines, so we can't go back in time and test something for millions of years. But what we can do is start an experiment like there was one started in 1988 to continually test the hypothesis of evolution being adaption to environmental pressures, right? You keep doing...

disingenuously trying to separate adaption to environmental pressures from evolution. That's exactly what it is. Okay, so when I asked you, how do you do this? You basically said you look at fossils and then you said a bunch of other things and you said you do tests. Correct. I said a bunch of things. It's my turn. Nothing in what you just said explained how you come to the conclusion, the extrapolation, by the way, an assertion. Oh, no, it did. Dude, let me talk. I just let you ramble. Shut up.

No, you're lying, though. I do have to jump in here. Craig, I know that I said something like shut the fuck up earlier or whatever it was. I do want to ask, let's allow Jim Bob to finish this point. I promise we'll come back to you, Craig. It's annoying, isn't it, Jim Bob, when people keep interrupting? It's really annoying, isn't it? So...

When you find a fossil, let's call it a cat fossil, Craig. So that's a new observation now, right? So you found this thing and you bring it out of the ground. And now it's your job for the audience to tell me, how did you hold this fossil in your hand and come to the conclusion that a cat that we see today comes from this changing process of this fossil? Please tell us.

I already answered that, but I guess I'll answer it again because you like asking the same question multiple times. So we look at the fossil and we compare it to the fossil records that we have. We compare it to cats that exist today. We compare it to other big cats. We compare it to the skeletons of cats that we find mummified. And we...

look at the lineage and we go, well, that looks like that. And there's bits that change. Then there's bits that look like this different. That shows this adaptation. And then what we also do is we compare the time of the fossils to what was happening in the world at the time. So we could look at, say, a...

a larger cat fossil and then maybe a little bit later there is a smaller cat fossil right and if we look at well why why would that happen well maybe at that time there was a drought in the world there was less resources available so the the the proto-cat

becoming smaller as an adaption to the environmental pressures was something that would be suitable. And then we keep comparing it to all the fossil records that we have, and compare those fossil records to the current cats that exist, and make the inference that this comes from this, this, and this. And then, to test the fact that species can change, we do experiments like the one that has been going on since 1988.

So please don't ask the same question again. That's amazing. So you told a story about what you think happened based on similarity. Hold on, hold on. If I find a fossil that looks like something today, I'll call this hypothetical camel world for the sake of simplicity, okay?

Right now, someone digs up an animal and it looks like a camel, but it's smaller. And you say, oh, voila. They say, they say, wow, this is very similar. They come to the conclusion because they use your methodology of fairy tale telling. And they say it must have the camel we see today must have come from this camel because it's smaller and they're similar. OK, the observation is actually actually similarities, a similarity of one thing you found with something that you observe today. That's the observation. Actually, that's not the conclusion.

Now, in another part of the world, Craig, track with me here, another, let's say a Peruvian community finds the same exact type of fossil, right, these bones, and they erect it out and they giggle and they laugh and they point at it, only they come to a different conclusion.

They come to the conclusion that the thing they found, they already know what it is because it's still around. Okay. Hypothetically, this thing's still around. So they have camels and they have this smaller thing that looks like a camel. They're both available to them in real time right now. Now I'm asking you a question right now. When you find this smaller camel looking thing in the ground and it looks like the larger camel looking thing, how do you use the observation called similarity, right?

in phenotype, how do you come to the conclusion that one came from the other merely from similarity? We compare it to all of the other evidence that we have showing similarity between other species as well. And we look at the transition between one thing and another. Yes, all fossils are transitional. That's something I completely agree with. You look at the thing you're assuming? Okay.

No, did you not? Okay. How do you prove transition? Maybe if you don't interrupt me with your assumptions of what I'm saying. Right, Jim Bob. Okay, here's what I'm going to do. How do you prove transition? Here's what I'm going to do. Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to try and answer the question and you're going to shut up.

Right, you do comparative anatomy. You study the skeletal structure, skull shape, jaw configuration, teeth, spine, paws. Cats have unique traits like retractable claws, a specific carnassial tooth shape, a certain vertebrae flexibilities. If the proto cat's bones share these hallmarks, then we can make an inference. You do genetic analysis, if available.

Rare, but if there's DNA preserved, e.g. in Ice Age fossils, scientists compare it to modern free-line genomes. Even degraded DNA can be partially reconstructed to find common markers. Three, you can use morphogenics. Use 3D imaging or digital calipers to measure bone proportions and angles. Run statistical comparisons with modern species to see how closely they line up. Four, fossil stratigraphy and dating.

Date the fossil using radiometric techniques like carbon dating, uranium series, etc. Compare it to the timeline of known cat evolution. Does it fall in an area where cat ancestors were developing? Then it fits in the family photo. 5. Biology. Location matters. Did this proto cat live in a region where early fields evolved or spread? Fossils found along migration routes of early cats confirm ancestry. 6.

Philogenic analysis build a family tree using traits and or genetic data See where the protocol fits among big cats small cats and other feline forms You're reading us an essay dude, you don't even know this shit you're reading it for reading dude

Sorry, am I not allowed to read the thing that you asked me to tell you? ChatGPT debate for you, dude. I'm not using ChatGPT. You want me to tell you the thing you've asked me to? Then let me tell you. It would sound like it's from ChatGPT, then who cares, right? It's the thing you asked for. Hold on one sec. I do want to just jump in because it is fair that there's two ways to look at it. One is, you know, Craig is going to share as many points as he can that are relevant to the question. And then likewise,

At some point, you know, if Jim Bob wants to jump in and say like, okay, that's good enough, like three or four examples or something, like that's reasonable too. So what was the exact question, Jim Bob? Did you tell him that? The question was this. If you find some bones that are similar to something that exists, the reason I use the...

the analogy of the Peruvian group is that it could, how do you know that an animal just didn't die out that could have just as well lived alongside the camel that looks similar to it? Do we see animals today that look similar to other animals that aren't the same animals? Yes. So the question of finding something and thinking in your head, well, this thing that exists today must have come from that thing doesn't tell us whether or not that thing could have just as well died out. And if it lived, it could have lived alongside of the thing that it looks like. So I'm asking Craig,

How, what methodology does he use to determine the thing he found didn't just die out and could have lived similar alongside the similar thing or that the similarities itself draws out this extrapolated transition between one and the other? And he can't give me an answer why, because the whole thing is conjecture. Right. OK, I'm going to say nine things that answer your question. Oh, nine. Just nine? Yes.

Just nine, right? But it answers your question. So if you date... Let's go one at a time. One at a time. No, one at a time. Comparative anatomy... No, I'm going to just... No, one at a time. No, one at a time. I'm going to list the nine. This is bullshit. Comparative anatomy, genetic analysis, morphogenics, fossil geography and dating, biogeography...

Fologenic analysis, unique shared derived traits, transitional features, pathology and wear patterns. Those all answer your questions specifically. - No it doesn't. That lists things. - Yes it does. - Craig, did you just list things? - You can cry all you like, I just answered your question. - Craig, Craig, Craig, did your nine things you listed- - Craig, say the fucking name right. - Craig, Craig. - No, no, no, Craig. Craig, that's how I talk. That's how I talk. I can't change my mouth. - We have to, Ari, let's get focused. - Craig, Craig, the things you listed,

The things you listed, nothing. You didn't explain the answer to my question. You just listed things that you think answer the question. You didn't actually answer the question. If you don't like the answer, that's your problem. You just listed things. I also explained them previously, but you cried that I was explaining them. Name the first one.

Comparative anatomy. Okay. You compare things. That's what I asked. How do you determine something that is, looks similar? How do you determine that it comes from the thing that it looks similar to? I answered that specifically. You didn't listen. Study the skeletal structure, skull shape, configuration. Stop there. Stop there. No, don't interrupt me. Not there. One thing at a time. No. One claim at a time. No. How does skeletal structure. Hold on one sec. Yeah.

No, this guy was. Yeah. What was the original question? The original original question was, how do you look at two things and you compare them and they look similar? And how do you draw out similarity equals one comes from the other? And Craig said skeletal and like skeletal analysis. OK, now he's got my hold on. Hold on. He's about to read off the rest of the nine chat GPT things, right? No, I'm not. I'm reading the one thing that you asked me to. How does skeletal analysis tell us one thing came from the other?

I was in the middle of saying that and you started crying. Right. So I'm going to do it again. Don't cry. Study the skeletal structure, i.e. skull shape, jaw configuration, teeth, spine, paws. Right. That's one part. Study? Yes. What does that mean? What does that mean, Craig? You never call it a study? I'm studying them. Yes. You study them. You look at them. And you find that they're similar, right?

Yeah, right. Well, the next part is... Back to the first question. Right? Cats have unique traits like retractable claws, a specific connerstle tooth shape, and certain varietal flexibilities. If this proto-cat's bones share these hallmarks, then we can make the inference that they are a similar species.

That is not what I'm asking. I'm asking. Yes, it is. I didn't ask whether things are similar, Craig. I asked you a question. When you look at similar things that share similar anatomy, phenotype and functions like claws and ears, a certain shape and fur. How do you come to the conclusion that when you find a skeleton of such things that it came from all you're stating audience, you can hear this is he's stating similarities exist again.

Right. Well, that was one part. So one was the comparative anatomy. Right. So that's the one of the nine things that I said. So, yes, that is one of the things you do. You look to see if they are similar.

Dude, are you- That's kind of important. Are you insane? Shut up. Shut up. You- How do you determine similar things come from each other? You look at if they're similar. I am totally- One sec. To be fair- That is one of the things that you do, Jim. You look to see if they are similar. That is very important when trying to find if an old thing is similar to a new thing. You look to see if they are similar. What was my question? That is comparative anatomy. What did I ask?

The next part is you do some kind of genetic analysis if that's available. That's another way to help. One of the things that you do, right, you can do genetic analysis if there is DNA available. Rare, but sometimes the case.

Right? Okay. Okay. Any questions on that? No, I'll just summarize what happened here is I asked, how do you look at any questions? Shut up. You look at two things. No, you look at two things that are similar. You dig up something and it looks similar to this other thing. And I asked, how do you determine that similarity? I'm in the middle of answering that question, dude. No, we are. This is a good opportunity.

Go ahead, Jim Bob and Craig, if you can give Jim Bob a chance to finish. And then likewise, though, Jim Bob, to be fair, there are occasions where you've interrupted Craig. So I do want to call out. Oh, yeah. I'm just giving the energy back that I've been getting, James. I hope you understand that. Jim Bob instantly started interrupting. So I've gone FTFE on him. He is the one who's decided how this debate's gone completely. Thank you.

So Jim Bob, if you can control your impulses, then I will do it also. I'm talking still. Yeah, I'm still talking. No, I was talking there, right? If you, Jim Bob, can control your impulses, then I will do the same. The debate is in your hands. Okay, cool. So when I asked, when you find something, a skeleton, and it looks similar to something that exists today...

How do you determine the similarity equals it came from this? The thing we have today comes from this thing being that today there are similar things that live alongside each other. Right. And so the question is, how do you draw from similarity, similarity in jaw structure, similarity in anatomy, similarity in bone structure, all the things you listed? The answer I got from Craig is you look at their similarities, right?

As one of the things, yes. Yeah, absolutely. As one of the things. That's a good answer to you? Yes. Yeah, because that is one of the things you do. Look at the similarities. That is very important. Okay. Okay. So I just want the audience to understand when I ask the question, when you look at things that are similar, how do you determine that one came from the other? And the answer is you look at how they're similar.

You compare the similarities. Yes, Jim Bogg. You do comparative anatomy, Jim Bogg. Okay, cool, cool. Jim Bogg, I'm talking. Once again, you just interrupted me. Remember, the debate is in your hands.

So if you can have impulse control, I will do the same. This is now the part where I talk. Okay. So yes, you absolutely 100% compare them. You look at the similarities. You see, oh, well, this tooth is very similar to that.

in this specific way. Oh, that's very interesting. That's one of the things you do. That's one of the things that helps you come to the conclusion. Another thing you can do is once you've done that is some genetic analysis. If the DNA is available, that can help you see if they are the same. Okay. So that is the next part we're onto is genetic analysis if available, because yes, looking to see if they are similar instead of just, well,

They're kind of similar. You actually study very carefully. Oh, they're definitely similar. So let's see if there's other similarities, like some genetic similarities. Do you agree with that? Yeah, it sounds like you're saying to determine whether or not similarities prove that one thing comes from the other, you study more similarities. No, science doesn't deal in proofs. You should please understand that. I understand that. There is no such thing as scientific proof. I'm using a colloquially.

Okay, right. Cool. While we're having the scientific discussion. Okay, let's get more granular, Craig, because, you know, this will keep circling around. I asked a question there, but to be fair. What's the question? The question was, do you agree that after doing comparative anatomy, as in studying to confirm if they are similar, the next step that you could do available is some kind of genetic analysis? Do you agree with that? Yeah, that would just be looking at more similarities.

Yes, to see if they are the same, to see if that species came from that. No, no, we still haven't got. That's one of the things that we would do next. We still didn't get their genetic analysis. Right. If you want to know if that is what this cat came from, you would compare the DNA and look for.

DNA that is similar to the old one. Now here's the thing, you can look at old DNA, right, and compare it to new DNA, and the difference will be there will be new bits added, there will be new bits of information, right? But you can go, oh, that strand of DNA, that exists exactly here, and you can then say, oh, they're 99% similar. Craig, okay, Craig, okay, so is it true from an evolutionary view that there is something in the cat ancestry, um,

common that doesn't look like a cat that's not similar to a cat? Sorry, ask that question again. Inside the evolutionary view, is it true that there is an ancestor of the cat that isn't similar to the cat? Oh, if you want to go back before the, like... Before cats?

Before even mammals and stuff. Well, no, no. To answer the question specifically, everything looked different at some point. There is an ancestor of cats that looked completely nothing like cats. There's an ancestor of man that looked nothing like man. In fact, they're the same ancestor. So, okay. If what you're proving that one thing came from the other and the criteria you're using is similarity in phenotype, skulls, DNA, and all these things, but your assumption under...

your assumption under evolution is that if you go back a little bit further, there's something that's not similar to a cat in their phenotype, in their structure, in the way they look. Then if you're not using similarity at that point, how do you come to the conclusion that there's a thing that is a predecessor of the cat that's not a cat? Well, again, at that point, you would...

say, so let's take the proto-cat fossil, okay, and then compare that to a fossil from even earlier. You would do the same thing. Between the proto-cat fossil and the proto-proto-cat fossil, you would do comparative analysis between them. You would have a look for similarities that show that this could have possibly come from that. You would...

again, if possible, do some kind of DNA thing or morphogenics by using 3D imaging, fossil stratigraphy, biography, all these things that each step of the fossil, right? It might be that a fossil from a really, really long time ago doesn't look like it's

you know, its genetic predecessor. It doesn't look like that. So how do you know it is if it's dissimilar? How do you know it's the predecessor then if it's not similar? Like I said, you look at the line, right? It might be similar. It might have similarities to the proto cat, but not similarities to the current cat. How do you know it is the cat, the proto cat, if it's dissimilar? No, I just said it might have similarities to the proto cat. If it's not.

If it's not similar... Well, you would compare it to another line of the fossil.

What? Look, you just keep going back. Yeah, you just keep comparing older and older and older fossils. And you look for similarities between those showing that these similarities went on in the genetic line, in the diversity. Look, there's so many ways of studying to see if things are similar. That's the thing, right? The big thing, Jim Bob, is that we don't have a time machine, right? And we can't go back. You just got to make it up. I agree. You got to make it up. Well,

Well, science is about assumptions. You have to... So you agree it's a totally assumption. Gotcha. Science is all assumptions. All of science is assumptions. So it's not a fact. No, the foundation of science is making assumptions and testing those assumptions, right? I agree. So what we do, we have made this assumption...

based on all the evidence and inferences that we've got, we have made the assumption that there is this thing called evolution, right? That's our hypothesis from, let's say that our observation in this case is literally all the stuff that you and I have talked about, all the different protocat and pre-protocat, all of the fossils, all the similarities, all the non-similarities, we've taken all of

this evidence right and we have just formed the hypothesis that there is this thing called evolution that is the adaption to to processes right the next step is to to try and falsify that hypothesis the only way that we can falsify this hypothesis is by doing tests within our own lifetime

Because that's, you know, we don't live in a very millennial era. Yeah, but Craig, if everything, every fossil you find, you're already a call it a transitional fossil. How could you possibly falsify that statement? Yeah, I know. How could you falsify? Wait, we're not trying to falsify. Hold on, let me fucking get a question out. Sorry, apologies. I didn't mean, I'm just saying, Jimbo, I didn't mean to interrupt you there. I do apologize. I was just trying to clarify the question. I am sorry. Okay. Please don't get so angry. I forgive you.

So when you how can you falsify something if you find a fossil and you just assume it has to be in the line of some ongoing transition of types of animals? If everything is a transitional fossil and you go in with that assumption, how could you falsify that? Well, the thing is, of course, everything is transitional. We're transitional, right? You know, everything is transitional. That's the assumption. Yeah, exactly. Right. So that's how do you falsify it?

By, by testing it, by making a prediction. How do you falsify it? I've just told you by making a prediction and testing the prediction. What prediction? What prediction? Well,

The prediction is that we can go back to the E. coli. The prediction is that if this is what evolution is and there is a progression, then we can test if organisms can adapt to pressures in environment. Right. That is what our assertion is from all of the evidence that we've got is that organisms adapt to pressures in their environment. So that is that that is our hypothesis.

So we have to try and falsify that hypothesis in a way that we can. And the most conclusive way that I've seen of trying to falsify that hypothesis is the E. coli test that's been going on since 1988, where they got a particular strain of E. coli that was resistant to most things.

And they created a solution that would destroy it. And over time, the stronger bits of that E. coli were the ones that survived and propagated, adapted to that environmental pressure. So then they increased the strength of the resistant thing. And it goes on and on. That is how we test that hypothesis. Okay, hold on, hold on. Isn't it possible, logically and practically, for E. coli reacting and overcoming...

stimuli, isn't it possible that that could exist and be true and a proto cat isn't true? We don't know that that's, this is, this is the way that we test our hypothesis. Well, our hypothesis, the reason we did that test is because of our hypothesis of evolution. I'm going to ask it again. You're not answering the question. So if, if

Yes, it is possible that that exists without that being a thing. But the point is that that is our test of that hypothesis. No, that's a contradiction. No, it's not. We are simply testing the hypothesis of if organisms adapt to environmental pressures. Because that's what we are claiming evolution is. We're not claiming it. Hold on.

We're not claiming that evolution is some magical thing where a fish becomes a monkey or anything like that. We're simply claiming that...

Every single organism on earth will adapt to the environmental pressures that exist. Okay. I understand. That happens slowly or over a long time. Correct. We, we, we can only test the hypothesis of it actually happening for an organism, whether it's a multicellular or tiny and single, if an organism reacts to stimuli and adapts, isn't it the case that it has to first be itself?

It's itself because of the adaptions that it's previously had. Hold on. For a larger animal like a cow to react to stimuli and respond to it accordingly, right? Doesn't the cow have to already be a cow? Yes or no? The cow is a cow because of its adaption to stimuli. Oh, so it wasn't a cow and the reaction to stimuli made it a cow? Yes. Interesting. So what was it before it was a cow?

uh whatever the the the ancestor of that was i don't know the exact name okay this is science now what how do you prove that an external no it's not science you don't prove in science how dude i already established that we use that colloquially how do you demonstrate that an external stimuli can be introduced to one organism type and the reaction over time is to become another organism

Yeah, I already answered that by doing the E. coli experiment or we can go back to the London underground mosquitoes which literally became a different species. What's the new species?

It's a different species of mosquitoes. What is it called? Oh, it's a mosquito, but it's not a mosquito? No, it's a completely different species of mosquito. Oh, it's a mosquito, but it's not a mosquito. You and I are mammals, right? But we're very different. Cats and us are both mammals, but we're both very different. Is that a mosquito? There's different species of mosquitoes, right? The point is, hold on, don't keep saying Craig. Craig, Craig. No, I'm talking. One claim at a time. Jim Bob, please. One claim at a time, buddy. I'm talking.

I'm talking. I asked Jimbo. Jimbo, let me answer the question. Sorry, guys. I'm so sorry. All right. Forgive me. First of all, I love both you guys. I appreciate you're both passionate. So if I ever sound cranky, I just hope you know I appreciate you guys. And I actually do appreciate your spiritedness. But just to be sure, do you guys want to do a different type of format? Like, let's say...

Something like, let's say like two minute, you know, back and forth. Do you want to go back to like a, like a very straight. 30 seconds. Yeah, we can do that. That's cool. Sure. I got the timer set.

Okay, so when you use the mosquito, the universal of mosquito maintains even if the type of mosquito changes and can't procreate with the previous mosquito. When I brought up the cow, what you said was the cow was once not a cow. That's different than saying mosquito has a different type of mosquito that follows, okay? Now you're making this giant leap between procreation.

cow and a previous thing that wasn't a cow and I asked can you introduce something to the non-cow where the reaction to the stimuli it becomes not a cow and you said we do it all the time look at these mosquitoes and then you go on to say 30 seconds is up yeah uh so it's still called a mosquito because that's what we're calling it we could call it something else

We are just still calling it a mosquito. We could change the name. We could call a proto-cow still a cow. Can we call it cow?

Can we call the mosquito? I think this is my 30 seconds. Sorry. I'm sorry. I forgot about the format. My bad. Yeah. You can call it whatever you want. The fact is it has become a different species. It is something that is unable to breed with the other mosquitoes. It probably should have a different name because it's no longer part of that same species. So what was a cow called?

Before it was not a cow, it's just a name that we have given it. It is still a different species because of adaptions to environmental pressures. Okay. It sounds like that under the evolutionary view, the term species is actually not an objective term. It's...

a, it's basically a nominalist view that there's only particular animals that are ever changing. And so when we point to a cow, we're only arbitrarily calling it a cow because it's actually in the process of changing to being not a cow, right? Everything's changing. You're right. That's kind of the point that we had earlier, Jim Bob, is that everything is traditional. So Hinduism. So you're a Hindu.

I'd say I'm more of a Buddhist of anything. I'm trying to be anyway. But the point is we are everything is transitional because we are constantly changing humans, insects, fish. Everything is constantly adapting to the environmental pressures that we exist in.

That's just the fundamental fact of life. And that's all evolution is. And that doesn't even go against God or anything, because God could have set that process in action. But the fact is, we do see species adapting to environmental pressures. You go back to Charles Darwin and the Galapagos Islands with the finches.

Over the decades that he kept going back to that island, he saw that the finches changed from one type of finch to another that then had a different name.

It's not. So if evolution has a contradiction in it, right? What's the contradiction? The contradiction is to make the claim that evolution happens assumes these universal categories called species or populations of species. Those are just names. Hold on a second. If premise one is evolution relies on the assumptions of universal species, types of animals that are themselves and not other things, and premise two is there's no such...

There's no such thing as species, types of species, because everything's always changing, right? So these two can't coexist. Well, let's just take the labels of species and everything out of it. It's kind of irrelevant. That's just biological terminology to try and identify things, right? The fact of it is, if you remove all the labels, what we see is every organism on Earth adapts to the environmental pressures that it lives in. If it doesn't do that...

It dies. It doesn't exist anymore, right? The species dies out, right? Like progressives. Okay. Yeah, funny. So that's 30 seconds. So if it's true that you could just as well call the next mosquito in your example not a mosquito, why would you assume the first one's a mosquito, Craig?

Because, again, the mosquito is just a name that we gave it. It could be, we could call it Fred. That really doesn't matter. We're talking about the word. That is just a name that we have given that particular thing. We're not talking about the word mosquito. Okay, that's the symbol we use in sound. I'm not talking about that, Craig. I'm actually talking about the universal category of what a mosquito is. Now, when I point to a mosquito, Craig, are you saying that I'm actually not certain it's not a cat? No.

I mean, it's got genetic similarities to a cat. Can I call a mosquito a cat? If you want to call a mosquito a cat, you can do it. No one's going to stop you. Under the evolutionary view, is it consistent to be able to call a mosquito a cat? No. Why not? Because they are, at this point, different species. That's a contradiction. It's not. That's the thing. You contradicted yourself. Remove the word species. They are different organisms with different DNA.

that look and sound and act different. This particular setup of organs and skeletons and muscles and fibers and hair, we call that a cat, particularly Prisby. That's my black cat. But this particular bundle of organs and fibers and probably some kind of exoskeleton or mosquito, right? We call that a mosquito, right? They are both

If we want to break it all down, they both exist of the same things. They're both made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. It's just the arrangement of them are different. And that arrangement of them

is a particular arrangement because of the environmental pressures that it has existed in. Craig, if the particular arrangement is always changing, you don't have a universal arrangement of these things. That's a contradiction. I never said there was a universal arrangement. You said these... I said we're all made of the same things. 30 seconds. 30 seconds. Remember?

Yeah, sorry, I was just responding to you. If the thing you're pointing to, you said we're all made of the same things and it's just the way we're arranged, the atoms and molecules are arranged, and this one thing called the cat is arranged in a certain way, but under evolution, it's actually not static. It's actually always changing. So it's actually a nominalist view. Hold on, I'm almost done.

It means that the thing you're calling a cat actually isn't holding its identity over time. It's molecules and things are changing over time. And there never is a static thing called a cat. There's only a particular thing that happens to be arranged to look like this other thing called a cat. This is nominalist cringe, bro. I mean, that's getting down to a little bit of philosophy and stuff. And I kind of understand your point. But the fact is that that particular arrangement of atoms and protons, neutrons, electrons exists.

because of the previous arrangement was a result of the environmental pressures that the previous arrangement and the previous arrangement, right? And these arrangements have created communities that then breed amongst themselves and create new arrangements. And we're all made of the same stuff. But the reason we exist in this particular forum is because of the

our group of stuff adapting to environmental pressures in a particular way. We are stuff. Come on. Jim Bob, you and I exist exactly the same. We are made of the same thing. Stardust. Well, you and I know that. Well, actually, Craig, you saying you and I assume the category that evolution has to deny. So you're in another. No, it doesn't. Are we humans? I definitely am. OK, is there a point where we're not humans? Yeah.

Well, you and I won't ever not be a human. Okay. Our descendants could not be humans. They could be known as something else. Okay. Okay. Got you. So is there a moment where something becomes human from not human under the evolutionary view?

Well, humans first really appeared as Homo sapiens about 200,000 years ago. Before that, they weren't considered Homo sapiens. They were whatever was before Homo sapiens, Homo erectus and things like that. We categorize Homo sapiens by the developmental process of the species. And that is just a part of the journey that our particular arrangement of stuff has had to go along.

Okay, and so from your view could you is your view that you could introduce something an external stimuli to humans where they are no they become no longer humans actually naturally over time yet, right so let's say the There was a massive drought for that lasted for centuries and centuries and centuries right and

most humans died out right but the humans that survived were the ones that were able to um you know maybe live on very little moisture or draw moisture from the air if breath arian is not real or whatever but you know the the ones that survived were the ones that were able to sustain themselves on the least amount of moisture right now their their children would um

have some kind of thing that would allow them to live in that environment better. And it might be slightly different from before. And as their children have children and their children have children, the adaptation to living in a place with a drought might change how the species looks. You might get smaller. Our brains might reduce. We might look very different then to what we consider a human now.

Because over the millennia, the children, the ones that survived are the ones that had this mutation that allowed them to adapt to a different environmental pressure. And eventually that environmental pressure could change the way that people look because we exist like this because this works good for now for the world we live in. Right.

But there might be a world where this form isn't the ideal form. The ideal form looks very different and the environmental pressures will go towards that. And the ones that survive are the ones that head towards that ideal form that reacts to the environmental pressures the best. So even though there be new, it's still human along the way.

It might look very different to us now to what we can do. So it's all human. So everything before human is actually human. We just arbitrarily call it not human, but it's actually the long process of the human.

Well, to be what we are now, everything, we have the DNA of everything that's existed before. Human, again, it's just the label that we give ourselves. I got you. So this is another problem, and it is a philosophical problem because you do need some philosophy to do science, and you definitely need philosophy to argue about evolution. The problem with it is that...

once you get into what your the consequences the entailment of the view it's that anything you're pointing to that's changing from one thing to another is a contradiction because there's no such thing as one thing and the other it's all one continuous process but that's not a contradiction that it is i mean that's that's just kind of that that is just how it is you know at one point it was this you know there's no identity yeah but the we have to take snapshots in time right if we take a snapshot if we take a snapshot in time today

The snapshot in time today shows you and me and James and everyone watching as humans is sharing mostly the same DNA. Right. But if we extend that snapshot to cover 10,000 years, it's going to look a lot different. Then we extend that snapshot to cover a million years. It's going to look even more different. You know, there's going to be one end to the other is going to look very, very different. It's about time.

Craig, I'm look, I'm, I agree with you that you're taking an arbitrary snapshot, but what I'm asking you is if you zoom out to full scale to the point where you can't even see earth, right? Like it's, everything's tiny.

Isn't it true that from the evolutionary view, if you go to deep time level view of it, there's actually nothing really called a human. That just happens to be a micro shot in time, a framework of what we are right now. But on the long stream of things across time, assuming common ancestry goes all the way back to like, you know, bananas and simple things that share similar structural things as us. Isn't it true that everything's everything from the evolutionary view?

Give me a sec. I'm just running that through my head. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Everything is everything because, you know, we share a common ancestry with everything. But, you know, it's the particular...

environmental pressures that that we our species our group what our category whatever you want to call it has has taken to then be what we are yeah we all came from the same thing but you know there's been branches um uh you know things have had to change and the the there's many different reasons for that like you look at um

Say you go back millions of years when the continents were all together, Pangea or something, right? Us humans, whatever you want to call it, would have had to be

rather similar because it was all one continent. It was all kind of in one place. But then as those continents started spreading apart to go into colder parts, the warmer parts, you know, the humans that were on those islands became very different. I mean, like you compare, you know, Eskimos and stuff to, you know, people from South Africa and

they've got differences within their genetics. Eskimos can survive in the cold a lot better. South Africans are much more adapted to heat and things and droughts and stuff like that than Eskimos. And that is kind of

showing the evolution. Hello, it is Ryan. And I was on a flight the other day playing one of my favorite social spin slot games on ChumbaCasino.com. I looked over at the person sitting next to me and you know what they were doing? They were also playing Chumba Casino. Coincidence? I think not. Everybody's loving having fun with it. Chumba Casino is home to hundreds of casino style games that you can play for free anytime, anywhere, even at 30,000 feet. So sign up now at ChumbaCasino.com to claim your free welcome bonus. That's ChumbaCasino.com and live the Chumba life.

No purchase necessary. BGW. Void where prohibited by law. See terms and conditions. 18 plus. Even within our own species, because, you know, they're very different, right? And then you can look at the DNA. You can say, well, you've got African DNA. You've got Dutch DNA. You've got, you know...

But we're all still humans, but we can still even within the 200,000 years that humans have been around, we can still see the differences in us. And if you let those differences continue over millions and millions of years, you know, let's say Eskimos or the people that lived in the completely cold, they got isolated from the people in the warm for millions of years.

over those millions of years the people from the cold and the warm places would probably end up looking very different and being very different they might even not even be able to breathe anymore because they've adapted the their bodies the best way to use the least energy in those environments okay um let's take something more at the granular level like a like a liver um would you agree that a liver has a function in the body

Yeah. What does the liver do? It processes toxins. Right. Yeah. It also produces some other liver in the kidney. Yeah. No worries. Me too. So if that is a function from the evolutionary view, the organism that the liver is inside of, according to evolution, once didn't have a liver. Right. Yeah. Well, you can look back at you and see.

vestigial organs, pre-organs starting to exist. The liver's got a very specific function of filtering out toxins

But there might have been a less efficient version of that that wasn't as organized in a previous version of our species, Homo erectus or whatever. But as we've needed to start to filter out more toxins, the ones that are able to do that better with more developed livers are the ones that then survived better. So the liver became more of a specific organ rather than just kind of a bundle of cells.

Okay, so you're saying there was a proto-liver that was a liver 101 that still processed and did something with toxins, right?

Yeah, like you can look at fish that live really deep down, right? In the mariner trench and stuff. They've still got, it's not eyes, but they've got what we could see, what would develop into eyes. They've got cells that are sensitive to photons and stuff, right? It's not eyes like we would recognize it in any way, but we can see how what they've got

would have, if they had the environmental pressure of having more light, of developed into something that was better at absorbing that light. You know, we can see the similarities. We see what does the same thing as our eye, but it's... I understand. I'm just, because the reason I ask is, when I ask, is there a time where the organism that has a liver

was something else and didn't have a liver. And you said, yeah, there was a previous thing, but it had a type of liver. It was just a simple version, which I would just start the question over and say, let's take that simple version. Was there a time where the organism didn't have the simple version of the liver that did its simple? Okay. So under the evolutionary view,

Wouldn't wouldn't it be reasonable to ask how does what's the mechanism under evolution that where an organism that doesn't have anything even close to a liver develops a functioning thing with a purpose inside the body? OK, so let's say there's a bundle of cells just happily existing. But this bundle of cells is very reactive to a particular chemical.

Right. It gets in contact with this chemical and it destroys the cells in some way. Right. But you this bundle of cells is multiplying and multiplying. And during that multiplication, one of the bundle of cells has a slight mutation in it where that mutation means that it's more resistant to that chemical that destroyed the cells previously. Right.

So now that that cell exists in the environment with something that can hurt it, but it's more likely to survive than the other ones because of that slight mutation that has allowed it to deal with that toxin in a certain way.

Let's say over millions of years, there's more of that toxin evolving, but the bundle of cells is also evolving. But they've had to the environmental pressure is that toxins there. So their environmental pressure has forced them to that mutation, then become a cohesive way of dealing with that toxin.

That evolution in a nutshell is accidental, right? It's an accidental mutation that is the beneficial thing that becomes the adaptation to the environmental pressure. I think I understand. I understand. So it sounds like you're saying the process of evolution is accidental, but the accidental – you're saying accidental processes can produce very strict defined purpose, right?

Yeah, 100%. If that accidental mutation actually turns out to be beneficial, right, then that mutation is more likely to be passed on to the next generation because it's beneficial, because it helps them. Under evolution, what evaluates whether something's beneficial or not in the process?

if it helps you survive in an environmental pressure, like I mentioned with the- That's an evaluation. No, no, no, I don't know if you get the question. We're post-evaluating, and from the human view, we're saying, oh, it's beneficial. The organism in its simple form doesn't evaluate whether something's beneficial. Yeah, right, okay, I understand. No, the organism itself doesn't know. But the fact that it's had this mutation that has given it a better chance of survival

means that that organism and its offspring are the ones that are more likely to survive that particular environmental pressure. And if that, if they, they are the ones that have that particular mutation, it's going to be, you know, passed on in their genes. And then because that's the, the thing that's passed on, it becomes more prominent as part of that particular generational path. Okay. It sounds like the, what you're saying is when,

When you look at the human body or any other body, you go in and there are these particular mechanisms, just like an engine. You look in and there's that part and that part, and then they're all connected similar to an engine. You get all these pipes and veins and things. What you're saying is that everything in the body, right, in the human body, let's take veins and arteries and muscle and all these things.

developed accidentally but are consolidated in a very purposeful manner with a purpose inside the body but they're totally crafted accidentally but not only individually crafted accidentally but the connections between them and their logical relations are also accidental right

Yeah, that's why we have so many junk DNA is the word for it. If you break down our DNA, there's literally a bunch of stuff that does nothing. It's just there. It's useless to us. But if we look at what it could have been useful in the past, when there was different environmental pressures, you understand why it's there. It's not something that we need to use anymore. The mutations will change, which bits of the DNA are being useful. Useful is purpose, though. How can you have accidental usefulness?

Because it helps you. It's as simple as that, right? If, hypothetically, the Earth all of a sudden raised 10 degrees, right? But then you had a child, Jim Bob, and that child, for some reason, had a genetic mutation that allowed them to survive.

in warmer conditions than most humans would, right? Now, a lot of the humans are going to die off because the planet's got too hot for them. But your child has much more of a chance of survival because it's now got this random genetic mutation that has allowed it to survive in warmer conditions.

So that child finds a partner, propagates that gene has passed on to their offspring, which is a complete accident. But now their offspring is more likely to survive this environmental pressure. And because they're the ones that are likely to survive, the other ones are going to die out and that gene will become the dominant one.

Okay. Well, it just seems that even the term accident, is there a way you can tell me a definition of accident being that you're using it in biology that doesn't presuppose some type of direction? Because to me, an accident, there's no way to define an accident if it's not some sort of missing of a target. So what is an accident? Okay. So this goes deep into biology, I guess. When, you know,

When cells split in the womb or whatever, and they're making themselves, sometimes there might not be a complete bit of DNA made. There might be a slight, you know,

You might have maybe the person that's carrying the child had a slight nutritional defect, which didn't allow this particular part of this child to develop properly. Or maybe that it was literally just, you know, DNA is code. Correct. But it's copied and copied and copied. It can have glycogen.

glitches and errors in it, and that error can show up as a mutation. Yeah, but the thing is, Craig, even the term error or defect assumes that there's a non-defect, which is the target. So when we point to things... Okay, yeah. Right? I get your point. Okay, but that's what I'm asking is like, what's an error if there's not a target? And if evolution is accidental, there is no target to say something's an error. No, no, you're right, you're right. Okay, so...

Again, it's just arbitrary labels that we're given stuff. Right. So you and I, we have a definition of what a human is and what normal human DNA is. Right. So for us, that's kind of the target. Right. But that's just an arbitrary label that we've given ourselves.

Right. So say your your and our DNA is the target, but we have an offspring that has slightly different DNA to ours. You know, I guess it's missed the target and under your terminology. And, you know, but it's still the DNA is still basically the same as ours enough that it exists. But it might have an adaptation, a mutation that will help it survive in whatever environmental pressures happen.

Okay, so survival... Evolution is an accident, right? I will be 100% clear. Evolution is an accident. So evolution, not only the mechanism is an accident and all the things that it produces accidentally, purposefully, that it produces purposefulness accidentally, function accidentally, but not only is that true, but the fact that it gears towards survival and not death is also accidental.

Yeah, it is. In the same way that, like I explained, it's an accident that allows a species to continue surviving. You know, there's species die out all of the time because they cannot adapt to their environmental pressures quick enough.

You know, if the environmental pressure has changed too quick and the species doesn't have time to adapt, the mutations aren't appearing or those mutations just don't happen. OK, then that species is going to die out. The ones that do have those random mutations, the complete accidental random mutations. OK, that just so happen to be beneficial are the ones that survive. OK, so under the evolutionary view, all the things that are happening.

Based upon our biology, chemistry, neurology, everything else in between, maybe that we don't even know. You're saying all of that and the effects of which are accidental, right?

Yeah, I 100% take in Bob's say evolution. You and I existing here are the result of a billion billion cosmic accidents. Okay, do you agree that... Accidents, that's not a word, is it? Okay, well, do you agree that from that view that even our reasoning is downstream from this evolutionary process?

Yeah, the reason you and I consider having this conversation, you know, having an intellectual discourse, it's an accident. It's a result of a billion, billion, billion accidents. Our consciousness existing the way that it does because of the neurons. It's all accidental. Okay, okay. So you know what? That is amazing. I just want to say I find that incredible, right? That makes me feel...

More special than the thought of like a God creating me or something. The fact that I exist because of a billion, billion, billion accidents. That makes me feel amazing. So does it make you feel amazing to know the entailment of that view is that your own rationality and reasoning is accidental? Yeah. The fact that I'm able to rationally think things is incredible, right? And I am constantly in awe of the fact that

the universe has somehow accidentally come along and ended up with me existing. I find that incredible. I find that awe-inspiring. I find that a testament of the infinite time that the universe has existed. Okay, so according to you, we're accidentally debating, and all of your reasoning and rationality is accidental, but you're arguing for something that,

a teleological position that we're heading towards truth or defending truth in a debate. Teleological. Can you just define that word for me? Like purposeful. Like there's a higher purpose to what we're doing here. Like a sort of super goal or whatever. If we're debating...

And you hold a view that we're accidentally debating and all of your reasoning and my reasoning is accidental. How would you even know we're going toward truth if there's no towardness? That would assume purpose. But you can't have purpose if everything's accidental. I disagree. There's nothing. But that was an accident that you disagreed.

Yeah, but I've still got my purpose. Because of a billion accidents, I can decide my own purpose and my own path. Accidentally. Accidentally, yeah. The fact that I'm able to think, you know what, I'm going to take my family to Tenerife in 42 days. I'm so excited, by the way. That was an accident that...

happened in the cosmic grand scale of things. There was no preset path that that was a thing that was going to happen. The fact that I exist to be able to make that decision to take my family away, that is all accidental, but it doesn't change the fact that it's led to me

existing able to make that decision. Okay. So when people study evolution, all those scientists, the people you're appealing to in their studies and their investigation, they're actually demonstrating just an accident. Their, their activity is accidental. So how would we, if that was true, um, well,

How would you know that the evolutionary theory and its assumptions are true if they're just the result of accidental firings in people's brains?

That's why we have things like the scientific method. That we accidentally do. We accidentally came up with a scientific method, but it's accidentally developed a method that allows us to determine at least what we are able to falsify. Okay, so when scientists do the scientific method, they're actually accidentally doing it. Jimbo, everything's an accident. Every decision that's ever made

is an accident. You know, you don't, you cannot tell what's going to happen in the future. You know, the fact that you and I exist alone is just an amazing, fantastic accident. You can ask it as many times as you want. Our thoughts, our feelings,

our homes, our families, they're all the result of a cosmic accident. Every single thing. But that doesn't change the fact that it exists. We can study it. We can test it. We can think about it. And here's the thing. Here's the most amazing thing. Am I 100% sure that everything about evolution is true?

No, absolutely not. And that's the amazing thing about science, right? We might come across something in the future that changes what we know about evolution and how it works. And that excites me.

Knowing that I don't know everything. But at the moment, this is the best explanation that we've got. We've we're unable to falsify our own hypothesis to a certain degree that makes us happy with it. So evolution at the moment is the best answer to why we exist as we do today. OK, well, so this is the problem I have. Can you define accident for me?

Oh, come on. I can pick it up. I'm just like, yes, I'm not holding you to it. I'm just like generally. I actually don't even know, Craig, to be fair. Like, I don't even actually know what it would be defined as. I'm going to something without a predestined path, I think. Let me see something. I mean, I guess I'm trying to define it in context. Right. You know, I don't.

You can define accident in, you know, I accidentally trip and smash my nose. But the same way, you know, the mutation happens accidentally. Yeah. I think we all know what accident means. Well, it's actually interesting to figure out what it means, though, because it has so many different uses, like car accident and this and this and this. But the reason I ask, Craig, is like for any context that I think of the word accident where it's ever used, like,

The thing it's pointing to is a misdirection or a missing the mark of something that was intended. And so being that you hold a view that evolution is accidental, I'm not sure how you're going to actually define accident with having its own positive ontology in a sense without appealing to the thing that it's missing from. So it's like undesirable or unfortunate happening. No, I wouldn't say undesirable. Sure.

That's fine. Right, okay. Let's go with a... Sorry, someone actually said in my chat it was very good. An unintentional consequence. Unintent. No intent.

Yeah. Okay. So if, okay, okay. If it's an unintentional consequence, if evolution is an unintentional consequence, then the thing that's causing evolution, some mechanism is also an unintended consequence of something before it. Um, and if, if all of evolution from your view is actually unintentional to me, um,

Without exactly telling us how this accidental process produces very purposeful things. Like, for instance, I think about snake venom, right?

Like it accidentally produced venom, a very specific type of protein that little literally melts the insides of like rats so they can consume it easier. Right. But that was an accident. But we don't have any B12 injection rattlesnakes. You know, when you're going on a hike and you, oh shit, I got bit by a snake and someone goes, don't worry. Those are just B, it's a B12 snake. It just have just as well could have developed right. A B12. Right. Well, you know,

If we look at the snake, why does it have venom? Because there is a mutation that gave it something that could protect itself. And that mutation was beneficial.

Well, no, again, it was accidental. That mutation was itself was wasn't purposeful. It wasn't planned. Is there a purpose in defending yourself? The mutation that allowed it to do that was unintentional. And the fact that the fact that it can now defend itself is an unintended consequence. It's a beneficial consequence. Why does it defend itself? But it's still accidental because it wants to live. No, but that's purpose.

Well, but again, but the ability to defend itself in that way was unintended. It didn't, you know, the species didn't intend to develop that particular mutation. That mutation was just beneficial and allowed it to survive because it's now better at defending itself. Yeah, but beneficial... It didn't plan that. It didn't think that. Beneficial doesn't mean intended. No, beneficial does mean seeking an outcome which assumes intent. Well, no, no, it doesn't. Beneficial can be... Something can be accidentally beneficial.

Yeah, but to say it's beneficial means there's an outcome that you're like seeking. No, it doesn't. Even if it's an accident. No, it doesn't. You know, an accident means you're not seeking the outcome. Jimbo, you can have something that is unintentionally beneficial.

That you didn't plan to happen. I'm sorry, Craig. You're misunderstanding me. It's my fault. When the accident happens, when you say something's beneficial, you're actually making a claim towards something, right? So we're doing it post-diction. We're saying animals in the past, a rattlesnake,

was once a different snake that didn't have the special protein and it developed it accidentally. And it also developed fangs that was able to accidentally distribute the accidental venom, right? - Over time, yes. - And because it accidentally developed a very purposeful thing, it just accidentally used it to its advantage by the way the advantage doesn't actually exist, it's also an accident that there's something called an advantage.

And it basically put them in a place where they're going to survive, even though there's millions of other snakes that don't have venom and they survive just fine from their accidental survival.

Yeah, all the snakes that have, you know, that exist now exist because they adapted to the particular environmental pressures. Rattlesnakes, you know, they develop that rattle accidentally and turns out when they shake it, it scares other things. That's an extremely beneficial adaptation that happened by accident that allows rattlesnakes to survive more than other snakes. Why do they accidentally keep the thing that accidentally has them survive?

because that's the beneficial gene. No, no, you can't have both of those. No, we can't. So the rattlesnake, right, it has a mutation. Its offspring has a mutation where it doesn't have that rattle, okay?

Well, let's say it has two offspring. Right. One that one's got mutation that doesn't give it that rattle. One's got to be. It's just it has the rattle like normal. OK, now those two snakes go out into the wild. The one that is more likely to survive environmental pressures of predators and stuff is the one that has the rattle. Right. Even though there is a random adaptation that took the rattle away.

that's probably less likely to survive the environmental pressures. So the reason it stays is because that gene being there is beneficial for that species to continue being there.

Well, no, those are contradictory because if your first step in evolution says the things that we see seem to be beneficial, that is to say it produces outcomes of their survival, all of those features were produced accidentally. And I ask you, well, isn't it the case that under this fully accidental view that them keeping them there is also accidental? And you say no.

Well, yeah. No, I didn't say no. It is accidental. It depends on the environmental pressures. The mutation that would change whether that snake had a rattle or not

Right. That mutation would need to be something that is able to survive in the environment. Right. If it isn't able to survive in the environment, then it's not beneficial. OK, Craig, beneficial doesn't beneficial does not mean intent. Craig is an accidental benefit that allows that thing to keep surviving. And the offspring that also have that particular gene and that particular adaptation.

are more likely to survive but if the conditions change say the prey that goes after rattlesnakes right dies out for some reason right then it's less likely that the the rattlesnakes rattle will then continue to be because there's no reason for that to then be a beneficial thing because the rattle is to scare off the prey and stuff but if they're praised on

then there's no reason why that would exist over a mutation that stopped it existing. I'll give you a chance to respond, Jim Bob, but just really quick, I want to mention, folks, we only have several more minutes, maybe around five, Hannah, at most, before we jump into the Q&A. So if you happen to have a question, well, other housekeeping things, if you happen to have a question, you can tag me with at modern day debate.

or you can do a super chat, which will push your question to the top of the list, or you can do the GoFundMe. So if you put in a donation and then let me know it was you, the person who put in the donation just now as we're live with this debate, we will read your question from the live chat if you tag me. And Basil Problem, thanks for your super chat, as well as we have a poll in the live chat on who you found most persuasive in today's debate, in case you didn't see that there. And...

We'll kick it back over to Jim Bob until the Q&A. Yeah. So when you look at things like testing an organism's response to stimuli by introducing something, the fact that you can repeat such a thing and you get a result is

demonstrates that it can't be accidental because it's repeatable. And so it's strange to come to a debate about natural science. Sorry, say that again. I'm saying that if something's testable and you come to the conclusion that introducing Y to an organism produces some sort of response that's regular that you can come to sort of inductive conclusions about.

It couldn't be random or accidental because the outcomes couldn't possibly be the same. And if you extrapolate that problem outward to evolution, the assumption that animals develop from other animals over time and then not only that but their features like fangs or wings or these things which have functions like a liver –

accidentally develop, then you actually can't, under the evolutionary view, say mechanism X causes this phenomenon because that would assume causality. And causality couldn't be accidental causality. You can't repeat causality. You can't argue causality is a thing. X causes Y.

If you if you deny, if you think everything is accidental, including evolution, then anything you point to in evolution or in science to say that X causes Y, you're saying that's accidentally being consistent. It's accidentally consistent. Yeah, but we can test that. We can even if it's an accident, it doesn't stop it being a thing. Right. It doesn't stop it existing just because it accidentally happens.

And that's the evolution. Yeah, it's accidentally happened, but that doesn't stop it existing. It doesn't stop it still being accidentally beneficial for the species to continue existing. That is the point of evolution. It is random mutations that are beneficial under environmental pressures. Okay, Craig. It's as simple as that. Craig, would you agree a mutation, would you accept the definition of mutation is a random mutation?

copy or error in what you called code? Could be, yes. Okay. Would you agree that for the most part, mutations, as we define them, they don't add or subtract anything to the organism? That they're redundant? They're redundant. They don't magically produce some sort of new path that's going to create a feature that's advantageous. Most mutations, as we define them, are nearly 99%

copies of existing info it doesn't add or subtract anything to the to the genome or do anything special it's just kind of like it can add things well that's what's okay but that's in question if do you agree that for the most part they don't add anything or they they don't subtract anything they're neutral mutations don't you don't subtract from dna that's why we've got junk dna i understand it

It's stuff that's left over that we don't need anymore because, you know, mutations can literally add things to the DNA. Okay. So is it true that for the most part, I didn't ask what you think that it might do if it's something might or could do something, right? I'm asking typically what we see.

is that nearly 99% of mutations are copies of existing. They're either erroneous or just duplicates of existing information in the genome.

Yeah. Okay. So if it's like changes. Yeah. Okay. So if it's 99% the case that what you call mutations are just copies of existing information, it doesn't add anything new. So when you appeal to, well, there's this moment, there are these moments where a mutation happens and it actually results in something beneficial. Can you name something that's a mutation? And you know that the beneficial thing, uh, was a result of the mutation itself. Uh,

You mean like you want me to tell you some form of evolution that's happened?

I want you to point to a mutation, which is a production of some information, whether it's a copy or not. Can you give me an instance where a mutation resulted in something beneficial, some apparatus or feature? So the London Underground mosquitoes, there was a mutation that allowed it to absorb a certain protein.

which meant that it could feed on insects and creatures that existed in the London Underground. Without that mutation that allowed them to absorb that particular protein,

they wouldn't have existed in the underground. The mosquitoes would have all died out because they wouldn't have had anything to feed on like mosquitoes above the ground do. So for those mosquitoes, that random mutation that allowed them to absorb that particular protein was extremely beneficial. It was a complete accident. Okay. For that mosquito, for that mosquito,

species of mosquito to continue these generations going on, that was an extremely beneficial mutation. Okay, I have to clarify something. It sounded like you said there's a type of mosquito that's able to absorb a type of protein. Is that what you said? Yeah, the London underground mosquito is able to... Once these mosquitoes got trapped underground, one of the mosquito's offsprings had a mutation. How did you know that?

Because they've studied all the remains and everything of the London... I can send you the studies on London on a grammar scale. I don't have to go through the entire thing. Wait, okay. Hold on a second. Greg, just sorry to interrupt, but as a clarification, do you agree that an adaptation in real time for an organism or an animal isn't identical to a mutation? Well, the adaptation is a result of the mutation. I know, but can adaptations occur in real time that aren't the result of a mutation?

No, you only have an adaptation because of a mutation. Over generations. Okay, okay. But if you see an animal do something new in real time... That's not evolution. That's just an animal learning to do something. Evolution is generations displaying... And how did you know it was a specific mutation that allowed the mosquito to learn this new thing called absorbing a particular protein? It didn't learn it. It just happened. There was a...

there was a mutation in one of the mosquitoes offsprings that allowed that mosquito to absorb a particular protein right um before that mosquitoes could not feed on the creatures they couldn't absorb red blood right that that's what that's what the mutation specifically was it was a protein um that allowed them to absorb red blood cells from from creatures and stuff right um i don't know how that happened i can again but i can send you all the

papers on the London ground mosquito, but that random mutation in one of the mosquitoes offsprings allowed that to happen. So that mosquito then fed on creatures and then it itself had offspring, which had that beneficial mutation. The ones that didn't have that mutation were less likely to be able to receive nutrients and all died. So the only the offspring that had this mutation was

were able to continue living in the London Underground. And the mutation, you know, and they continue to mutate and have different things happen to them. And there are so many mutations and adaptations that they lost a lot of the abilities of the mosquitoes that exist above ground, so much so that they are very different species and can no longer interbreed.

Okay. Would you call what you just referred to, would you, if I read this, would you agree that what you're describing with the mosquitoes is a change in an organism caused by a modification of a gene expression? Yeah, there was a random mutation that changed the DNA, that changed the genes. Well, no, hold on. That change was beneficial in the long run. Sorry, do you agree there's a difference between a modification to gene expression and an alteration of the code itself?

Is there a difference between a change, an alteration to expression, gene expression, and an alteration to the genetic code itself, that there's two different things? I don't know.

Okay, that's why I would ask is like in that instance I would want to know is that an example of gene expression changed by modification or the alteration of the genetic code itself? The reason I ask is if evolution is assuming the latter needs to be the thing as the mechanism then the former wouldn't really be an example of it. Evolution is simply saying whatever the mutation is if that mutation leaves a beneficial trait

that trait is more likely to have generations that can survive the environmental pressures. That's it, right? And within the mosquitoes, the mutation, whatever it was,

It gave them an adaptation that allowed it to survive on things that they wouldn't normally need to have. But that was the only source of nutrients. So the mosquitoes that didn't have that adaptation died out. And that is evolution in progress. It's showing that this random mutation was beneficial to the environmental pressure that it was in. And that is what survived. All the other mosquitoes died out.

It was only the ones with this mutation that managed to survive and over decades became a very different species. Yeah. Well, the thing is, it didn't... If you call it a different species because it has a different type of DNA thing going on and it no longer can reproduce with its previous predecessor, that still doesn't get you to this view that, you know...

one pot, one thing you call a species over time, uh, becomes another entirely different universal, uh,

thing, like a completely universal thing. But again, then we can go back to comparing fossil records to fossil records to fossil records, just going back in time and comparing similarities. It goes back to the beginning of the conversation we had with 90 things that I listed that are all ways of testing the hypothesis. Yeah, but Craig, you know how many animals you're assuming...

are a part of the evolutionary process. All animals, right? - Every single animal. Everything, every organism that exists is a result of evolution. - Hold on, hold on, I understand. I'm just, it's a clarifying question. So, and your, one of your go-tos is fossils, right? You would agree that fossils are pointing to vertebrates? - Yeah, fossils are one of the bits of evidence for evolution. They're not the be all and end all. - I understand, but it's the one, but-- - It's just one of the things. - Okay, but you understand that most animals aren't vertebrates, right?

Yeah. So there's no, uh, skeletal fossil for the mostly, most of animals, uh, or invert invertebrates. So the, the state, the standard you use, the criteria for transitional fossils being often a go-to, not just from you, but many, uh, evolution proponents and defenders, the, the fossil being pointing to mostly skeletal things and drawing out some similarities and then making some sort of, uh,

conclusion about the matter you couldn't really do that with the majority of animals which don't actually have bones

Yep. But you just again, you just look at the adaptations and mutations that have happened over time and compare them. You know, this this is why we will test the hypothesis in whatever way we can. But like I said, Jim Bob, right. This is just the best answer we have at the moment. This is just the best explanation. There's no alternative that gives a better explanation for what's happening than the current explanation and scientific theory itself.

of evolution, right? But again, that's the wonderful thing about science. We could discover something which changes everything we know that we think we understand. Okay, what could be discovered? We're willing to change. Okay. What could we discover? I don't know. I can't see the future. I was finishing a statement. Sorry to interrupt. It's like this. It's like

What could be discovered about fossils that would then move the claim that all fossils are transitional out of the equation? What could be discovered about fossils that would move it so that you couldn't just call everything transitional? Absolutely no idea.

Okay. Well, that's fair enough. Because to me, going in and saying everything's transitional and starting with that assumption and then looking at similarities and being like, look, they're similar. It must have come from the other thing that looks similar. My question would be, well, let's say all of the similarities were still there. How would you determine that they didn't come from each other? I'll give you a chance to respond, Craig, and then we'll actually jump into the Q&A.

Again, you just look at the records that we have. We just look, right, okay, so these are similar to this. This shows a lot of things that we think are similar. We can test the DNA. We can look at the morphology. We can look at previous records and previous records. We just keep going back. But the most important thing will always be just testing the hypothesis in whatever way we can.

Right. And again, science is never 100 percent certain about anything. But this is just the best explanation that we have right now. I don't know what could come along to change that. Something could.

Because who knows? But I don't know what that is. But right now, this is the best explanation we have. It makes sense. It's logically sound. There's experiments that fail to falsify all our hypotheses about evolution. And if something comes along that changes that, I am the person that is willing to follow the evidence. You got it. Accidentally, though. Yeah, always accidentally. Okay.

so many accidents and want to say folks thank you guys want to give a quick update as you can see the bottom right of your screen couple of quick housekeeping things as mentioned uncensored America is putting on this tremendous debate Andrew Wilson versus apostate prophet

It is going to be amazing. It's April 28th. Tickets are linked below. Get your tickets now before it's too late. Don't risk forgetting. You have got to be there. I will be there in person. Andrew will be there in person. Apostate Prophet will be there in person. Sean Simankou, who started Uncensored America, will be there. Come hang out. Meet people. Have fun. Make friends. Tickets are linked in the description box. And there's a free option. So if you're like, hey, I don't know, like,

That's actually an option. So that's really cool. And we.

as I had mentioned earlier in the stream, are raising funds for camera lenses for that debate. So we are trying to get these camera lenses because back in debate con four, people were like, James, like modern day debate, like you guys have been around for a while and you got this brand name and you know, your audio and video quality sucks ass. And I was like, oh really? Cause I didn't, you know, I don't know what the difference is. And they were like, yeah, you have to get better cameras and better audio. And it's true looking back. I'm like, wow, that was kind of shitty, but

We are no longer running with shitty audio and video as we, basically Sean from Uncensored America, have been

My camera guy. So for DebateCon 5, if you notice, like, wow, their video and audio doesn't look shitty anymore. That's because of Sean. And he said, hey, these lenses that we are renting for DebateCon 5, we should buy them. We will share them between our organizations. So when we host debates or like Sean just hosted their event with like Myron Gaines is all these events. We will share those camera lenses. And it's...

It definitely makes more sense because we're going to use them all the time. It just makes sense to buy them rather than rent them. Otherwise, you rent them so much that you paid more than what you would have for buying them. We've raised in the last hour, we jumped up by from about 500 bucks to about 600 bucks. So we're at 600 even. So thank you for those of you who have supported. That GoFundMe is linked at the top of the description box and it is linked at the top of the live chat right now. If you'd like to help, we do appreciate that support.

And thank you to those 19 donors who've already jumped in on that as well as.

What I'm going to do here is jump into the Q&A. I want to say a couple of quick housekeeping things. Folks, we appreciate our guests. If you want to hear more from our guests, what are you waiting for? Check out their links below. Made by Jim Bob and Craig are linked in the description box. The guests are the lifeblood of the channel. So we do appreciate them and highly encourage you, even if you disagree with them, hey, go to their channel and harass them a little bit. Give them a little action that way. A little engagement. Throw your poop at them. And I want to say, though,

First, thanks for your question. This one coming in from, and let me just make sure I've got this sorted, is the first one. Rachel Wilson, thanks very much, says, Craig is very good at telling stories, but he hasn't explained how adaptation produces a complete and total change of kinds.

Yeah, I very much did over many many many many many years the changes could be significant It's you know, we see evolution happening on on a smaller scale where there is very big changes in in your subspecies and over time when we look at the trans, you know, the fossil records and everything we can see how

They can change from one entire species to another, one entire kind to another. The evidence of evolution is there, and I've explained the mechanism behind how it could happen very well. I have a question. Not that it matters now, but in the future. It's a good feature when Craig's talking, he becomes big on the screen. Was there a feature I was supposed to unlock so that when I was talking, I became big on the screen?

Come again. Oh, the way I have it is you guys remain the same size and occasionally all adjusted if you move far away from your camera or closer to your camera. Otherwise, you guys are static in terms of your video feed size. Oh, because I see Craig when he talks, he becomes big on the main main thing. You mean on your Zoom, Jim Bob?

Yeah. Oh, that's because it's mine. Okay. You probably got a set in where whoever's talking appears on the screen. Thank you. If you just click it to view gallery, it would just stay static for you as well. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Nice.

And this one coming in from, do appreciate it, Lewis says, I feel your frustration, Eric. I must have missed that one for the last question. This one from Rachel Wilson. Oh, Alex Stein. Thanks very much for your super chat. Said, let's go. And Alex Stein will actually be on in the next debate. So in an hour, we'll start the final debate of the night. Alex Stein versus First Amender. That is going to be high energy. How many hours have you been going for, James? Huh? How many hours have you been going for?

let's see since uh like seven eight no eight a.m my time so what is that like eight hours oh yeah it is that's weird i feel good i actually feel surprisingly yeah i'm gonna do this on my level i did a 55 hour stream last time come on wow i well i'm thinking about maybe like an 18 hour stream next how do you like 24 come on man it up rachel wilson also said

This is bullshit. Craig doesn't know the difference between giving a lesson of nothing but descriptions and making an argument. This isn't a debate. I probably put a comma in the wrong place. Craig doesn't know the difference between giving a lesson of nothing but descriptions and making an argument. This isn't a debate.

Well, Rachel, you may have missed the evidence and descriptions of the mechanism of evolution I gave. Actually, very much backing up my claims. Just because you didn't understand them, Rachel, doesn't mean that I didn't do my job. And unfortunately, this does just turn into me educating people that don't understand these basic physics. However, very much looking forward to debating you. Wow, I really... We lost your audio, Jim Bob.

Oh, yeah. How's it going? You got this one from The Diesel. Says, the evolution denier doesn't know enough about the topic to know he's looking, to know what he's looking for as evidence. Um, well, that statement said absolutely nothing. Thank you for that. And Basil Problem says, Craig, why do you think you were qualified to participate in a debate on evolution? Um,

Because I am a man of science. I've studied evolution quite a bit. I may not have degrees in biology or anything, but I've done lots of studies of evolution. I've done a lot of reading on evolution. I'm as qualified as anyone else, really, that wants to debate it. Wow. Well, I do also want to say...

I know that I started the stream with crankiness, uh, as I, uh, but I do want to give huge credit to Andrew Wilson as he just, uh, told me he's like, Hey man, like, uh, he's like, Hey, let me do this for you. Something that he doesn't have to do. I have to acknowledge and say, Hey, like, that's really cool. So I do appreciate that, Andrew. Um, you're like, frankly, you didn't,

It's true. You didn't owe me. So I do appreciate that big time from Andrew Wilson. So I know that people are like, man, I expected to see Andrew when I woke up. It was going to be how I was going to start my day, drink some coffee, eat some eggs and listen to an Andrew Wilson debate. And I know that some people were like unhappy. And so it's true. I was unhappy. I like explained the context, but yeah.

I have to say, Andrew, thank you so much for your generosity and making, uh, you know, doing this. So James, James, I just want to add in that your unhappiness, um, was accidental. You got it. Everything's accidental. How do you like that? It's good to see that you no longer holding the mic and moving it around as well. Oh, and someone asked what, uh, they asked if, uh,

If I was using the mic to cover my face on purpose, yes. This is my monstrosity of a face. I'm trying to cover it up. TikiTak says, what a shitshow. And Aulawali. Can you have Jim Bob explain radiocarbon dating? Explain radiocarbon dating? No, I can't in detail explain it. I can't, but Greg can if he wants.

I mean, I wouldn't know how to explain it in detail. It's basically looking at the age of atoms of carbon-14 and seeing how far that half-life has gone. I'm wearing my hoodie. You know who says that? Mother Holda says, I'm pro-evolution. Craig needs to chill out.

It was Jeb Bush who famously said that. I am chill. I went to Amsterdam recently and I brought the Amsterdam back with me. I'm loving it. And like Jim Bob knows, I was just reacting to him. Wow. Dylan Dishner says, I would appreciate hearing Craig Steelman Jim Bob's actual critique of evolution. I didn't really have one. He was just asking questions about evolution and

If anything, his critique would be that we haven't labeled things correctly so that you can't say this is a species and this isn't. He also thinks there's some contradictions in how evolution would work. But there wasn't really a position that Jim Bob gave specifically. It was more just denial of evolution as it stands.

You got it. Jim, Bobby, if I'm incorrect there, would you tell me? Well, you almost got one of them. One critique was it couldn't make its way through fluidly, coherently through the method. You disagree with that. The other one was that nominalist thing where like if you say one thing is derivative or downstream from another thing.

but yet evolution ultimately holds that there's no such thing as one thing or the other thing. There's no universality in any of these things, which you admitted everything is everything. And so if you hold the view that everything's actually one giant thing, then when you claim evolution is this process of things changing from one thing to another, but there's no such thing as one thing or another under evolution, it's a contradiction. I mean, that was a fair, fair critique from my view, uh, ultimately, um,

the philosophy of nominalism being used to try to buttress evolution, I find kind of hilarious. We've got it. This one coming in from do appreciate it. Rachel Wilson strikes again, says until the E. coli turns into something other than E. coli, Craig has no argument, just stories and descriptions. We can call it something different, just like we do with everything else. Rachel, what you don't understand is they're just labels.

All right. We can literally call it a different bacteria, a different species. And again, we can literally look at the fossil records that we have and see how things used to be different. You know, there's you know,

We can look at the geological time periods and what's happened in the world, compare that to when things existed. We know there's not billions and billions of cat skeletons and fossils lying around. They look very different. So we can show that things changed how they look over time. You got it. This one coming in from Jordan says, Jimothy is two for two back to back made two opponents unbeaten.

hide behind ambiguity and completely confront and contort their own positions. I'll take things that didn't happen for 500, please, Regis. Wow. Basil Problem says, modern day debate, can you schedule a debate with the premise, quote, is there value in non-experts in a field debating whether that field is true or non-true? Say that again?

They said, can you schedule a debate with the premise? Is there value in non-experts in a field debating whether that field is true or untrue? So basically they're just saying like if you're two guys who aren't experts in whatever topic. It's fallacious anyway.

I mean, even if Craig and I didn't know shit, it might limit our ability to debate, but it doesn't take us out of the equation to be able to debate it. We've still got opposing views, so there's no reason why we can't have an intellectual discourse, even if we don't hold academic qualifications in that particular field. There's no reason why Jim, Bob, and I can't hold a discussion, a debate on our own terms.

I mean, does it make a difference into the enjoyment? Yeah. You know what? It's probably going to sound better and more clickable if it says PhD in evolution versus, you know, creationist. That's probably going to sound more clicky. Right. But it doesn't change the fact that Jim Bob and I can have a conversation and a debate. You got it. This one from Aluwali Blue Vegan says religion is a plague. Look what it's done to Bob's brain.

Well, actually, that would be an evolution advantage. In fact, I could make a good argument on a separate debate if Craig wants to have it, that if evolution was true and everything is derivative of the process, then our own belief in God, even if it was false, would provide some type of beneficial benefit.

advantageous. So the fact that religious people actually multiply more than non-religious actually shows that the religious people, being that it's a plague, are more evolutionarily fit than you, you little scoundrel, die out. Well, to be fair, Jimbo, that is a slight straw man of evolution because evolution isn't just more babies equals better.

No, I didn't reduce it to that. I just said a part of evolution would have to be that you survive, right? Because that would be what's called beneficial. And fitness, under an evolutionary view, is the ability to produce your offspring, right? Continue your lineage, your DNA, pass it on. That would be multiplication, right? So if religion is a plague and yet it produces more fit organisms...

Then the guy who just argued that it's a plague, well, bye-bye. Take yourself out of the gene pool. But it also would produce less fit organisms as well.

Well, if fitness, if you add what fitness means, I'm just saying fitness ultimately, if the precondition for passing on genes is, and survival is, reproduction, if all other terms for fitness or unfitness are after that, I'm saying religion has the first and foremost covered better than the non-religious. Well, yeah, because of the story that you've given it, right? What story? That religious people...

produce statistically more they they they're off their offspring is higher at a higher rate than non-religious you the story that you've given that that is a better thing it's not necessarily true it could actually um having more of a species could end up with the species then dying out because resources become too scarce for the species so necessarily having

more and even healthier offspring isn't necessarily the evolutionary thing. Let's say, for instance, you had an offspring that was small, tiny and weak. However, the environmental pressures existed where

Everyone needed a lot less nutrients because there was a lot less available. That smaller, weaker, less healthy organism is more likely to survive in an environmental pressure where there's less nutrients available. Yeah, but the thing is, I think we agree. From my view, there's no such thing as better under evolution.

I mean, yeah, it's better for us is what we make better. What we decide is better, right? Yeah. You know what I mean? As in for the ability for the species to continue existing.

Yeah, and so it could, you actually, from the evolutionary view, being that the person said it's a plague, religion's a plague, it could be the view that an organism comes collectively to the conclusion that killing off a giant amount of species, you know, genociding an entire race or even a category of species, they find that advantageous to them. Like, they could potentially argue that under evolution. They might not know the outcome, but they can certainly make the claim, and it might be true.

Well, it certainly made the Viltrumites a lot stronger. Yeah, I mean, it's like battle of the fittest, you know, might wins, you know, survival, takeover, terrestrial gain. I mean, religion, from an evolutionary view, let's say no religion's true. It seems like terrestrial gain by force, by will, by coercion, by any other means seems to be an advantage that would have developed over time from strict evolutionary terms, right?

Yes. One coming in from look at Craig's face. So self-satisfied over there. I'm just teasing you. I'm always happy. I'm only, yeah, I can, I'm firm with you because I know you could take it both, both you guys, you know, you're, you can handle it. You, this one coming in from, Oh, by the way, folks, thanks so much. We also had someone just put in James Clark. Thank you for your support. We just jumped from 600 to 600.

700 for the crowdfund. So thank you so much. That seriously helps a lot. I think we're up to about 20% of the way.

We appreciate that more than you know. And yes, folks, you guys watching on my channel, James gave me the opportunity to go to America and it's happening again. And I really appreciate that. So if you guys have any spare meccles sitting around and you want Monday debate to increase the quality of what they do, I would appreciate also if you could just chuck a few spare dollars at James's GoFundMe because then it means you get to see me in high definition. Wait, is that a good thing?

That means a lot. And it is. We want to see your big, beautiful face in high def. But yeah, we do appreciate it, folks, because it is true. Back in DebateCon 4, if you look at the old debate between Matt Delhunte and Andrew Wilson, that famous or infamous debate where the shit hit the fan and that one was interesting. You can tell.

that are not only did the shit hit the fan in terms of the debate going sideways like 20 minutes into it where matt walked out uh but also the video and audio quality people were like james come on like you're gonna take this seriously you gotta like so we do think that there's a very good purpose for these lenses we no longer want to run them we don't own lenses like um other than you know like i've got you know i've got my cameras or something but these are like good ones and

And I've got to tell you, we appreciate your support. I'm pumped that we just jumped another $100. Seriously, it means more than you know. And also, we're excited that that $100 is... The $700 is not truly reflective as Andrew Wilson. I didn't share the details before, but basically Andrew Wilson said, hey, I actually just...

He didn't have to do this, so it was very heroic for him to get up and do this. He said, hey, I just raised $500 for you. So I want to give huge credit to Andrew. That's super kind of him to help Modern Day Debate. I want to give a huge thank you. We've got a few more questions, but I do want to say Jim Bob and Fight the Flat Earth, a.k.a. Craig,

They help Modern Day Debate just by being here. Like them as debaters, they're good debaters. People enjoy listening to them. So we just appreciate the debaters. Five years we've been doing this together. Yeah, it has been a long ass time. And I also, it's been, it's had its ups and downs. No, I'm kidding. It's been fun.

But both Jim Bob and Craig are linked in the description. Folks, what are you waiting for? Click on their links. Even if you disagree, I mean, if you agree, obviously, you know, go have fun, make friends. If you disagree, then now is a great chance to go throw your poop at them over at their channel. Give them some engagement. A dislike helps just as much as a like. This next question coming in from

Raw Dog says, why haven't we seen any monkeys evolve into humans over the many years of observation? If evolution is still a thing, we would still be able to see it happening today. Did it just stop? No, no, it's still going on. But, you know, our lifespan is tiny. Monkeys never evolved into humans. That's not a thing. Monkeys and humans have a common ancestor. Monkeys evolved from the same thing that humans evolved from. We just evolved.

developed in different environmental pressures. But we absolutely do still see evolution happening today. Let's look at, for instance, wolves becoming dogs. Yes, that is forced evolution, but still evolution. Let's see. This one coming in from... Oh, yeah. Modern Day Bait is on Facebook. In case you guys didn't know, that's linked in the description. And...

christopher howard says craig are you aware that programmed cell death occurs ninety nine point nine per cent of the time when genetic mutations are discovered this creates a statistical impossibility when considering the number of mutations necessary for new species

Yeah, it does not create a statistical impossibility. It just creates a statistical unlikelihood. Unlikelihood doesn't mean impossible. Even if cell death does occur 99.9% of the time with mutations, that still leaves a 0.1% of the time where they don't die and that mutation can exist and be then passed on to its offspring. All it needs is that 0.1% to have a beneficial mutation

uh adaptation for that particular organism in that particular environment for that then to be the one that survives with the offspring so you're so do you at least concede that evolution the way it's described is mathematically unlikely uh the the odds of it happening the way that it does are mathematically um unlikely um but the um as in you know for the

The likelihood of the statistical likelihood of there being a genetic mutation that both doesn't cause cell death and is beneficial in the environmental pressures is, you know, the odds of that are extremely low, but not zero. It is a non-zero probability, which means that it can happen. And because, you know, Earth's been around for many billions of years, there's been plenty of time for that low probability to still happen.

You got it. And this one coming in from Mud says, this is to me, Bob Ross evolution. Are the laws of logic and physics just happy little accidents as well? Just big mommy universe and daddy times baby? Yeah, everything's an accident. The laws of physics that exist as they do, as far as we're aware, are an accident.

The expansion of the universe allowed the gravitational constant and everything to be as it is by accident. Who knows? Everything is accidental. There's no evidence otherwise. This one from 42attacks says, Craig, today marks the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord. Why haven't you Englishmen evolved? You're still kind of a pain. Love you though. Happy Easter.

Shush over there, or we'll take the colonies back. This one from Jordan says... I think I got this one. Let me know. They said, just check the study. It was a change in mating behavior. Had nothing to do with protein digestion. Full argument built on a lie. Did we do that one? He's talking about the mosquito. The molestous form of Kulix pippins exhibits several adaptations that enable it to thrive in subterranean environments and feed on mammals, including humans. Key adaptations include...

A host preference shift, unlike its surface dwelling counterpart, which primarily feeds on birds, molestus has developed a preference for mammalian hosts, adapting a protein that allowed it to digest red blood cells. Behavioral changes, the mosquitoes can also mate in confined spaces and remain active year round without the need for a winter disples. These adaptations are believed to have evolved in response to the unique environment of underground habitats where birds are scarce and mammals are the primary available hosts.

So if he actually read the paper, he would see that there was more than one reason for the evolution. There was, in fact, multiple adaptations, including the ability to digest blood cells from mammals instead of just birds.

This one, folks, I forgot to tell you. If we, where do we say? Right now we are at $700. If we get to $1,000 before the end of this debate, I will take off my hoodie, show you the Subway tattoo. It's my favorite tattoo. It's my only tattoo. My tattoo beats yours. Why? But it's not Subway.

No, it's Star Trek. Okay. Well, nobody's perfect, but I will show off my tattoo. If I don't know if show off is the right word. I embarrass myself with my logo on my back. If we get to a thousand dollars, I appreciate it. So thank you so much. This one coming in from do appreciate it.

That is, I will admit, that's a very well done Star Trek. It's not finished yet. I've got a bunch being added to it. Earth's going here. A lot of colors going in it. This is going to be bright gold. All the lights and stuff on the ship. The nacelle is going to be on because it's at warp. And a bunch of nebula and stuff. Okay.

Any no tattoos, any tattoos? I have one very regrettable tattoo. I got a tattoo of my daughter's initials, which is M and J on my middle finger. And the M sort of dissolved. And now it looks like an H. So I have an H.J. on my hand. Oh, no. Like touched up.

No, you can't touch up the finger because it just bleeds because, you know, your fingers are always moving. So, you know, I just have to have to just deal with the funny accident that I have H.J. in my arm on my hand. It's a story. It's funny. I mean, you know, you know what it means. That's the thing. You got it to you, right? Yeah. Yeah. If someone says, what's that? You get to tell a funny story. That's true. What other what more noble purpose could there be to get it, you know, for your kids? Like that?

That's cool. I like that. I've got my family's on this side. I've got my wife, my son and my daughter on here along with my family's clan tag. That's rad. And this one coming in from Let's Talk God says, question for Craig, is sex an evolutionary accident? I don't know if they mean like relations type sex or if they mean sex. Sex is how humans propagate.

And that the way that they do that is a result of evolution, which is an accident. So, I mean, the long the short answer is yes. Sex is an accident. Is it an accident when I have sex with my wife? I hope not. I surely hope she's aware it's happening. This one coming in from.

Your question from No Way As Way 1988 says, why don't prey animals evolve to willingly be consumed? Why don't prey animals evolve to willingly be consumed? Because that would be... I mean, there's no genetic mutation that would cause... Plus, that wouldn't be beneficial. Why would willingly being consumed be a beneficial adaptation? Yeah.

Yeah, that's interesting. This one coming in from 10 Nublet says Craig believes a pro organism evolved a more complicated penile nub and somehow came across another proto organism with a vaginal opening by mere chance when then reproduction worked just fine. Bruh. Wow. Please don't like any matches because you must be around a bunch of straw men.

no no one said that species evolve you know as a species and the the mating process is part of that adaptation good lord man you're like the literal person that thinks that a fish had sex with a monkey and turned into a bird or something

You got it. And I can't believe it's already like 426. I'm in Pacific time. So it's crazy. This time has flown by. Austin Graham says, James, do you say wow, like Owen Wilson on purpose, or did you accidentally evolve that way? Ha ha ha. That's funny. You do realize you do that, right? It wasn't because of Owen Wilson. It's because there's a guy named Fred Herbert that I heard say it like that. Really?

I literally see his face when you say it. I'm like, stop it. Basil Problem says, are you a crazy Christian? So Modern Day Debate is a neutral platform, but yes, you could consider me crazy and a Christian. Crazy Christian with a... So you're not just a Christian, you are specifically a crazy Christian. Pretty kooky. I've got some beliefs and ideas that are like both from... Yeah, I'm...

I'm like, you know, anything goes. Slithery says, look into the anthropic principle. If the laws of physics weren't what we observe, then we wouldn't be here to ask the question. Yeah, I mean, he's right. If the laws of physics were different, then, you know, who knows? I think this might, oh, maybe this has to do with, like, the idea of, like, why do the laws of physics seem to be...

such that they allow for like that they're perfectly, they appear to be designed for life. And I think he's saying, well, yeah, like the anthropic principle says that if the laws of physics weren't what we observed, then we wouldn't be here to even ask the question. In other words, like if they weren't designed, apparently designed for humans. The only thing is I want to give you pushback on this, Craig, unless Jim, Bob, if you have something, is that like, you know, this is a little bit the anthropic principle. I don't want to.

how about this what would you say to this craig if someone else sent a super chat that said but isn't that kind of like saying like let's say i said like listen i survived a plane crash the stars just seem to align in terms of like all the things that had to be in place to protect me during the plane crash like everybody else died and it was from like you know it's a plane crash so it's the plane's coming down from like i don't know 30 000 and then you know you asked me james uh

how like how could this have happened like why did it appear as if there was design and imagine my answer was well if uh if i would not have survived like if it wasn't the case that all those things happened in just the right way i wouldn't be here to tell the story don't you think or even ask the question huh or even there to ask the question of how it happened but don't you see how it's kind of like not particularly an answer of like it doesn't feel like it's answering the question per se

Because if I, you know, like the question is like, well, wow, like how did you survive? Like, like me saying like, well, if I didn't, I wouldn't be here to talk to you right now. It's like, well, that doesn't explain how you survived, right? Like that doesn't explain how all these things were like perfectly aligned. So you survived. I mean, you know, if you survive a plane crash, that that's the, you know, the outlier, right? Most people don't survive plane crashes, you know? So the,

Yeah, you were in that plane crash where you survived, but that's not the normal case. The fact that you survived the plane crash and you're there then to be able to talk about it and stuff is an accident in itself. We'll move on to the next one. Unless I don't want to take your spot in talking to Craig. No, no. Honestly, it's an interesting conversation.

The only thing I would add to that is I heard Craig say before that the laws of physics came about from an accident, but that would assume there was a previous law of physics, a type of physics that could produce the process that produces the laws of physics by accident. And then that set of laws would need to be accidental and then would need something before it and so on.

No, you're absolutely right. We don't know how things started. Right. We can we can mathematically go back to the point of the Big Bang, but we don't know what caused the Big Bang to then set in motion the laws of physics as as we know them. Right. And but we know that if certain conditions were very different during the Big Bang,

then the laws of physics could be completely different now. The gravitational constant was different. If the universe expanded at a different rate, things could have been very different. But the fact that for whatever reason, if the Big Bang did happen, the conditions that arrived allowed the laws of physics to exist as they do. We don't know why. It could have been a design beforehand. There's no way to answer that. But as far as we can tell, it's just an accident from the way the expansion happened.

juicy we'll jump into the next one and we do appreciate your question this one coming in from quick lee says god's creation must have a blueprint or recipe and perhaps that is evolution slash science perhaps we ate on the same page i think they meant perhaps we are on the same page yeah no i i completely agree with that right um

I am an atheist, but there's no way I could ever prove that God doesn't exist or that you didn't create the universe or whatever. It's just that's something that's completely outside of science. But who's to say that if there is a God, he didn't set in motion the laws that evolution follows? You know, it's very clear from the evidence, at least it appears to be clear from the evidence, that evolution is what happens.

But I'm in no position to say that that wasn't then designed before the universe to be how it happened.

What do you think? I would just add that the ambiguity of God ends up being the problem here. You have to be really specific when you say, I believe in evolution and I believe in God, and you have to go, who? A Christian approach, I've debated, redeemed Zoomer on this matter, that from a Christian perspective, if you just grant us that Christ, Christ is risen, that Christ took on humanity, human nature, but human nature is always evolving. There is no universal...

that Christ took on because the universal natures don't exist. And so from that view, a Christian couldn't say we are tasked at healing our nature if there's no such thing as a human nature, right? And it also follows that if evolution kept continuing and we maintained our Christian duties, in my perspective, participating in the sacraments, let's say divine liturgy,

Divine liturgy could very well be composed and conducted by a bunch of beasts that look like platypuses, right? So if that's the case, you just need some time for that to happen. Now, if someone says God is like the creator of all things, but there's no real task or ontology for our being, who we are and what we are...

And you hold a view that evolution melds everything together, as Craig has kind of pointed to today, that everything's everything. There really are no distinct categories of animals and beings. Then the question of like, well, what are we doing here? If that God set into motion this giant machine, biological machine, how could you have moral positions from this God if we're all just one thing? That would mean that like,

everything we do is not only accidentally produced, but it's actually determined by strict physical laws. That is to say, if someone, you know, the terrible shootings that occur, those are just determined outcomes of biology through the evolutionary view. So like, who is this God, by the way? Who is the God? I ask further questions. That's why it's fun to do debates against other theists, actually more fun than debating an atheist.

Take that, Craig. This one coming in from... Thanks so much. We just jumped another $100 in the fundraiser for these lenses. Thank you so much, folks.

I appreciate it more than you know, and I got to tell you, it is, I'm guaranteeing it. It's a very financially clever strategy for us just because, like I said, if we have to do, hold on, my sister. I'm so sorry. Can I call you? I didn't realize I clicked answer. I'll call you right back in like four hours. Is that okay? I'll call you right back in four hours. Oh, thank you. Love you too. And happy Easter too.

Hey, Jim Bob, that blue bar you've got behind you, what one is that? Oh, it's a, wait, floor. I'll actually send you the link, Craig. Yeah, because I'm wanting some of that for in here. It's a Nuvo. I'll send you the link. Thank you. Yeah, it was very affordable too.

But yeah, basically my sister says happy Easter. I love my sister. Um, and, uh, but yeah, I do, uh, want to say, yeah, we are excited. So thank you so much for the last person anonymous, uh, donated $100. In fact, we have two anonymous donors of a hundred dollars. Um, thank you so much for that support. Uh, that means more than you know, we're at 23% of the way. Uh, so that is like pretty close to being able to get one lens in full. Um,

And like I said, the cool thing is you usually have to pay like over $100 just to rent the lens for a day, if I remember right. You could just buy it for $900. If you use it nine days, you've already paid for it. And that's not including...

Bacon five, we had to pay for insurance because the company's like, Hey, you're renting like $19,000 worth of, because not only did we rent the lenses, but the actual camera bodies, it was, it was freaking expensive. So this is a smart strategy because I'm telling you, we're in this for the long run. I just bought the modern day debate.com domain for the next 10 years. Finally got it. Cause one of those damn squatters had it and I waited them out and I waited for the day it expired and I snagged it.

The other thing is, uh, we had, yes, we need $200 more. If we get $200 more, I'll, we'll show you the subway tattoo. Believe me, you won't, uh, regret it in the sense that it will keep you, uh, awake for, for many nights. Uh,

Christopher Howard says, second comment, I say that evolution is statistically impossible because the creature with the mutation would not survive long enough to find a mate with the same quote-unquote accidental mutation with which it could reproduce. I think there's maybe...

Yeah, a mutation doesn't automatically mean it straight away couldn't reproduce with someone without the mutation. It's only over several generations of that happening that they become very different. A mutation straight away, there's no reason lions and tigers can still mate and produce offspring, even though they're genetically quite different species.

It has to be genetically very, very different for mating to not be possible. Although I think once a lion and a tiger has a child, that child can't then produce any offspring. This one from 1776 says, this is God's terrarium. We're all just living in it. Interesting. Thanks for your super chat. This one coming in from...

No way as way 1988 says Craig are the laws of logic accidentally consistent. Yes, everything is an accident. The laws of logic exist because of the universe existing the way it does. And as far as I can tell, that's an accident.

This one from... How would you... Hold on. How would you know it's not an accident? Because being that we established that your own reasoning is accidental, what would... How would you know it's not an accident? If you said everything's an accident, how would you know it's not, do you think? Right. That goes back to the question of do I know what started the universe, right? If I knew there was a being that started the universe that set every law, law of logic, law of physics, law of, you know, everything in motion...

then I guess it wouldn't be accidental. But unless that is the only way that I would assume that things are not accidental is if I saw the thing that designed it all. But as I don't personally believe in a God, then I have to hold the intellectually honest position of this and that. Yeah, but you do believe in something that's categorically at least in the same category as God. You believe truth exists, right? Yeah.

Yeah, I wouldn't, I would not say that truth and God are the same though, because God is, at least within your own paradigm, God has shown that he can lie. Well, no, I'm saying that for something to be true, if truth exists, then there's an absolute standard ontologically for truth. But under your view, if everything's accidental, the truth as it exists ontologically, how does the truth exist if it's accidental?

Well, it can be accidentally true. Being true and being accidental aren't mutually exclusive. Yeah, but how, in what way does truth exist from your view, being that it's accidental? In what way does it exist? You can show that A leads to B with logic and maths. I can prove mathematically that one add one equals two and show that that's absolutely 100% true. Accidentally? Yeah, accidentally. Okay. Okay.

You got it. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Basil Problems says, Craig, are you comfortable with being a performer on a Christian channel that, based on a menu of debate topics, likely believes women's rights should be limited?

Modern Day Debate is a neutral debate platform on science, politics and religion. Although James himself is a Christian and the majority of the audience appear to be Christian, the platform itself is not a Christian platform. The specific things that James believes or that the audience believe does not change the fact that this is and always has been a neutral platform.

This guy's weird. This is the one that asked you, Craig, if you think it's if you do, why do you think you're qualified to participate in a debate on evolution, Craig? They might be a stiffly stifferson. I don't know. You could ask that. You should ask that guy. Why does he think he's qualified to ask Craig if why he thinks he's qualified? And we just keep going, you know, go down the line. Yes.

This one from Let's Talk God says, question for Craig. If sex is an accident, therefore, if I cheat on my wife in all possible cases, it's an accident, correct? Yeah, everything's an accident, but you have the ability to choose. Everything's an accident in the sense of you exist because of an accident, but...

Because of these accidents, you have been given the ability to choose what you do. That ability itself is an accident. So what you choose to do is up to you. If you choose to use those accidents that have given you a conscience and a mind and your own thoughts, if you choose to use that to cheat on your wife, that's a you problem. I've been married for 18 years. I've never accidentally put my penis in somebody else.

That's good news. And this is also good news. Thanks for your question. This coming in from, let me just see if I can get this to load here. Oh, other good news. We just hit, we jumped from 800 to 900. So thank you so much, folks. Seriously. We're excited about these lenses. We plan on using them all the time. I want to give you a quick, I'll wait until, oh, holy smokes. I actually got to let you guys, we have to,

wrap up pretty quick here so i actually have to let our guests go because we are going to start the last debate in just 18 minutes so uh let me just skim for any last questions then i want to let these guys go and i'll give you updates about stuff but yeah if we do if we hit a thousand i promise i will show you the the subway tattoo uh very excited about it 100 to go guys

So yes, I don't know why you'd want to see it, but we appreciate your support. I think that is it for questions. I'm going to do a quick skim and want to say check out Craig's and Made by Jim Bob's links in the description box. What are you waiting for, folks? Right now, check them out. But yeah, thank you, Craig and Made by Jim Bob for being here. It's been a true pleasure to host you guys.

Absolute pleasure as always. Jim, thank you for the very passionate and enthusiastic debate. It's always fun. You as well. Thanks, guys. I will let you go. And what I'm going to do in this case, it's kind of different where it's just booting you from the old Zoom call because I'm going to keep the same one. Take care. Have a good one. And let's see here. Just fixing this. And voila. So I want to say, you guys, thanks so much for your support. Seriously, it means more than you know that we are

For our fundraiser, we're at 900. So that is epic. And yes, Oliver Catwell says, what number do we have to hit on the GoFundMe website?

to not see the tattoo. That's funny. You know, I mean, it's, uh, if we get to a thousand, then the only way that you're not going to see it is if we get to 2000, but, uh, but yeah, no, I'm, I'm pumped. If we hit a thousand dollars today, that's an Epic, uh, it's an Epic fundraiser. Uh, we also, like I said, I'm super thrilled that Andrew mentioned, uh, huge credit to Andrew. He didn't have to do this. So let me just give you the objective, you know,

story of why I'm mentioning it is so like this morning it was supposed to start at about 11 a.m. Eastern which is like I think what is that 8 a.m. Eastern for me and

And at 730 in the morning, I got a message 30 minutes before where Andrew was like, hey, man, I just didn't get enough sleep last night. We just have to reschedule. And I was kind of like pissy. And I was like, come on, Andrew, like, you know, you're like this leaves me out to dry. And then, you know, I mentioned it on stream and, you know, I didn't lie and I didn't call him any names. But so I probably seemed a little pissy at the start of the stream. But to Andrew's credit, he woke up.

did his own stream and raised $500. He told me this. He sent me a DM saying, hey, I'll have to be more cautious about my commitments in the future. I kind of took on more than I could do, which I totally get that. I do that all the time. So I appreciate him just being honest and especially, like I said, it's kind of a hero move that he just woke up and was like, all right, now I'm going to raise $500 for James. So

That fundraiser is like in a way actually 1400. So we do appreciate that. And it is true. It's like, wow, it's like James, you're raising $3,500. The thing is,

It's for four different lenses. And people are like, well, why are you getting four lenses? That doesn't make sense. Well, it's because during a live debate, like debate con, you have to have four because you have one on the speakers and then you have, uh, Dorian, I'm still here. Here I am is you have one on the speakers. You have one, not one on each speaker. You have the broad shot that shows both speakers. And then you have one that's on the audience. So there is a reason we're getting four. Uh, we will use all four regularly. And,

Including for this particular debate coming up that you have probably already seen advertised on modern day debate at least is Andrew Wilson versus AP. But yeah, Andrew Wilson. So we appreciate that Andrew has done that. So

It is super cool. And then I do want to show you, yeah, it'll be used at that debate, for example, on April 28th. I'm going to get some food though, because, you know, I do want to eat really quick before we get these guys on. So we might start the next debate like a few minutes late. But yeah, thank you guys for your support. Once we get, if we do, I think we can, I'm confident we will get to a thousand dollars for the GoFundMe. I will show you the tattoo, this big, beautiful tattoo. And give me a sec though.

I have to. So don't worry, I'm going to be right back. But I am also going to get a protein shake and some chicken. And then we'll do the last debate and I'm going to get a cup of coffee. I'm like an old man. I'll be back in the live chat. If anyone comes in and they're like, what's going on? Why am I not seeing anybody? If you could focus in the live chat, let anybody know like, oh, like that's that's why you're not seeing James is in the kitchen getting some food.

You're free now. Free to fill your feed with impossibly chonky chonkers who chonk harder than you ever thought possible. Cats, corgis, babies, baby penguins, baby pandas, chunky baby pandas. Free to make your smart devices do silly things. Free to open a world of remote work and a portal into gametopia. Who's the boss now? Free to be everything you imagine and then some. That's how it feels to have Quantum Fiber Internet.

Quantum Fiber, your world unleashed. Learn more at quantumfiber.com. Limited availability, service in select locations only. Time is precious, and so are our pets. So time with our pets is extra precious. That's why we started Dutch. Dutch provides 24-7 access to licensed vets with unlimited virtual visits and follow-ups for up to five pets. You can message a vet at any time and schedule a video visit the same day. Our vets can even prescribe medication for many ailments, and shipping is always free.

With Dutch, you'll get more time with your pets and year-round peace of mind when it comes to their vet care.