Traced: Human DNA's Big Surprise with Nathaniel Jeanson

It's fascinating to me how easily someone in one religion can find the fallacies and biases in another religion.

I think that what's fascinating... You're razor sharp on your criticism of Islam here.

Yeah, but what I find fascinating, Jeff, is that you recognize that with other religions, but you don't do it with your own.

Because I... That may be the case. And there's that confirmation bias coming up again.

Welcome to Apologetics Live. We're here to answer your questions and challenges about God and the

Bible. Meet your hosts from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rappaport, Dr. Anthony Silvestro, and Pastor Justin Pierce.

We are live, Apologetics Live, here to answer your challenging questions. Anything you have about God and the

Bible we can answer here, because we believe I don't know is a perfectly good answer.

So let me bring in Dr. Silvestro. How are you tonight? Good. How are you? It's the first time we're going to be doing a show together in quite some time,

I believe. At least a whole show. A whole show, right. Yeah. We've been doing a tad bit of travels between you and I.

You got done with travel, and then I started taking off for this month. Speaking of which,

I was down in Washington, D .C., and as you know, whenever I travel, I have lots of tracks with me, was giving out a ton of tracks, and I always like it when

I get some tracks, well, sort of. I got a couple handed to me, okay?

Why is the world so divided? Now I was interested in this, although it is your typical paper, you know, someone printed off at home and folded up, but okay.

And I always like to see what the groups are. So let me ask a question, and you just,

Dr. Svesh, raise your hand or shout out when you hear a problem to this question.

Judgment day. Drew said it already. That's exactly what I was guessing in the comments.

Okay. Of Jehovah's Witnesses. That's exactly the type of tagline they would use. Yeah. Well, that was actually one of my things that I thought, but we'll see.

I mean, it could be KJV only, too. I mean, they're kind of like that. So here we go. The question, judgment day.

Are you saying that judgment day is almost here? Here's the answer. No. Actually, the

Bible revealed the fact that judgment day has already come. Perhaps you remember hearing about the date,

May 21st of 2011 proclaimed to the world several years ago.

The Bible indicates the proclamation was correct, which means that God has been judging the world from that time until now.

The Bible also indicates the prolonged judgment period will continue for several more years, very possibly until the year 2033.

Can you predict what group that is from? Wow. Well, I have seen similar things from some

Asian Christian cults out in California. There's a number of new breakups.

Every time we go out there to preach with Ray for Masters Academy and whatnot, there's new ones out there and they all have similar ones to that.

So I couldn't even give you a guess. You don't know the date. OK, I'm going to read one more answer. We'll see if people that are on YouTube can figure this one out.

I immediately knew from that date, but this one got me even more. The question is, so after explaining all about this judgment, the question that they asked is, this sounds all bad.

There is no good. Is there no good news? OK, so now we're ready for the gospel, right? We're ready for some good news.

Here is their good news answer. There is good news for those that were saved prior to the date of May 21, 2011.

Those people were saved through hearing the Bible and have been left on earth to go through the grievous period of the world's judgment.

These elect people have been left on the earth in order to make the appearance before Christ's judgment seat.

They almost go on to say that they're sinless perfectionists, but here's the group. Now the actual group that this came from is from eBible

Fellowship, but the date comes from none other than Harold Camping himself.

And so that was the only track I was hoping to, you know, I was hoping I went on Saturday.

I was out at the White House and walking around the mall, National Mall.

I was hoping to see some people doing some open air because we used to, you know, you and I know some folks that were in D .C.

that we used to, there used to be some evangelist team down there and they used to go out every Saturday. And unfortunately,

I didn't get to see any of them out there, which is a bummer. That was the only gospel tract

I got. But I did give out many tracts, so we were glad for that. It is too bad because most of the time

I have gospel tracts handed to me. They're all from cults too. Yeah. I love when

I get gospel tracts from solid people, but. Few and far between. Well, I guess before we get to our guest, you know,

I was, somebody reached out to me today in Ohio and was asking if we were doing an Equip Ohio this year.

And I said, no, you know, we, some of these things have been off our radar, but I think maybe next year we're going to try to find some churches and do some of these evangelism conferences again.

So anybody who wants to try and fraternity to come out and do that, please contact us because we are looking to find the right churches for next year to do that.

Yeah. We might have one in Ohio secured already, Northern Ohio. Yeah, that's true. Because the one that we used to go to in Jersey, we don't have a contact there anymore.

Previous pastor passed away and the current pastor has moved on. So I don't know.

He moved on to? He did. Wow. I didn't know that. Okay. That's too bad.

So yeah, so let's get to the in the news segment before we bring our, you know, because I have a funny feeling that this is going to, this is going to be something that we're going to, we're going to work in well with Dr.

Jensen because he may, he, he may be able to answer some of this tonight. So I think this is very fitting.

So in the news section, I saw this, Dr. White had posted this, but in Oak Park and River Forest High School administrators have now voted.

They voted that they are going to change the grading system based on race.

They're now going to add a scale for grading so that those people who are a certain races, you know, who are somehow because of the color of their skin,

I guess they can't succeed. And so they're going to give benefits to help people get their better grades.

They said in here that because they noticed that certain people of certain color skins were less likely to pass the

SATs compared to, they say here that there's a failure of 77 % of black students, 49 % of Hispanics, 27 % of Asians and 25 % whites.

And so they're saying that clearly based on that, it means that if you're black, you're less likely to be, you need more help,

I guess. You can't do it without some white administrator, I guess.

I mean, I guess we shouldn't be surprised by this, right? Yeah, you know, I look at every area for both equality and equity.

Yeah. And so this becomes the thing that we end up seeing throughout. So be expecting this, folks.

There is a case where I just saw today. I forget offhand the state, but there's a state suing the

Biden administration because they've tied the school lunch program to teaching transgenderism.

So if they do not teach the transgenderism, the students will not get their free lunch.

So when people say, hey, there's no such thing as a free lunch, that's right.

You got to teach what they want to indoctrinate your children with. So we'll have to ask our guest as I bring him in, whether there is such a thing as races.

I think he may have a different view. I could be wrong, but Dr. Nathaniel Jensen, welcome to Apologetics Live.

Thank you so much, Pastor Andrew. So you and I got a chance to interview when

Anthony and I were out your way over at the, we were there at the

ARC Encounter for the Truth Matters Conference. You and I got to do an interview, which folks, if you haven't listened to, go to listen to the

Wrap Report, my Andrew Rapwort's Wrap Report podcast, because there you'll be able to get a lot more because we, that was like an hour and 20 minutes and you were just touching the surface of your new book.

And so let me tell the book that you've just recently wrote, let folks know how to get a hold of it.

It's called Traced. Anthony's holding it up there. And so it's called

Traced, Human DNA's Big Surprise. So the place to get that, especially to get the discount, we have a discount code for you that they set up with us only for till July 4th.

But you go to masterbooks .com, masterbooks .com, and use the promo code or the coupon code

TRACED22, TRACED22. Now the book did sell out. I think it's back in,

I think comes back in print if I saw correctly on the 15th, but I believe tomorrow they're going to start taking pre -orders again.

At least that's what I was told. So we have from now or at least when they open up the sales to go get that.

So masterbooks .com. So Dr. Jensen, let,

I want to give you an opportunity to introduce yourself, let folks know a little bit about your background before we dive into your book.

Yes. So I'm with Answers in Genesis and speaking to you from Petersburg, Kentucky, where we have the

Creation Museum. Offices are affixed to the Creation Museum. Our encounter is about 45 minutes away further south. If you come this way, flying to the

Cincinnati Airport, which is actually located in Kentucky, even though it's called Cincinnati Airport. I'm originally from Wisconsin.

I married a Southern belle from Alabama, and now we're living halfway between basically both locations, which makes it nice to be able to visit the parents, grandparents, and been with Answers in Genesis now.

May makes it seven years, and in full professional creation science since 2009.

So that's about I think we're in August will be I think 13 years total. So have been working on research heavily since then and a lot of what

I've done is focused on biology research. I guess just to sketch the trajectory of my career since then and maybe back up one more moment just to give you the broader context.

I grew up in a Christian home, a young earth creation home, and I guess you could say a science home. My dad was a dentist. My mother was a nurse and had that background plus a homeschooling background where we were able to attend worldview conferences, have creationist education, learned evolution, learned creation along the way.

ICR materials, Answers in Genesis materials from early on, went to a small

Christian high school for my high school work, or a small Christian school that was K -12, small graduating class of 12,

I think, and went off to the University of Wisconsin Parkside where I majored in molecular biology and bioinformatics, which is just a mouthful of a term meaning the study of life at the smallest levels and also the use of computers to analyze that.

So I took a few crack computer science courses that they told me would allow me to speak to the computer scientist, which is basically all it has allowed me to do.

Never learned any good programming. Went off to graduate school at Harvard and did my PhD basically on adult stem cells.

I guess the category that they put it in was cell and developmental biology, though the lab itself was more immunology focused.

So it was medical sciences trying to deal with human disease. My interest was cancer at the time and there was a growing connection between adult stem cells and cancer.

The behavior of the two seemed to have a lot of parallels. And so the thought was if we study the normal operation of these cells, perhaps, sorry,

I got a tickle my throat from too much talking today, I think. Anyway, if we understand the behavior of normal cells better, perhaps we can understand how cancer makes those normal processes go awry.

And then joined the Institute for Creation Research after I got my PhD, summer of 2009, joined ICR, Institute for Creation Research, August of 2009.

I was tasked with developing the biology research program. The motivation that the

CEO, the then CEO gave me, Henry Morris III, was that creation scientists had done a lot of geology research and astronomy research.

So biology would logically be the next place to go. And it just so happened that there was the beginning surges of large amounts of publicly available genetic data.

And so what I learned from graduate school was to first find the questions. So we came up with about eight questions all revolving around the origin of species and focused on that heavily for the first six years or so, six, seven years at ICR, then continued at Answers in Genesis.

And because there's just a massive amount of human genetic data out there, the research has taken a decidedly human turn in the last five years or so.

I should mention, have the book behind me on that tape to the cabinet.

But 2017 was when this book came out, Replacing Darwin, the New Origin of Species, that covers a lot of that territory, a lot of the ground that I and we researched during that time at ICR and continued on to Answers in Genesis.

I wrote this as a primary audience, a college student in mind, someone,

I guess. I guess in a sense, I wrote it for myself. I wrote the book. I wish I had when I was a student to be able to hand to my evolutionary classmates and say, you need to read this if you hold evolution.

So it covers a lot of that new research. The title Replacing Darwin instead of Rebutting Darwin tells you the main thesis of the book, that creation scientists haven't just come up with errors in evolution or problems of evolution, but are now actively surpassing the mainstream community and their ability to make testable predictions and see them fulfilled.

And then this latest book, of course, Traced, Human DNA's Big Surprise, focuses on the research, the flurry of it in the past three to five years that focuses on the human origins and human history question.

And in fact, fulfills some of the predictions I'd put in print in Replacing Darwin. So there's some of the personal background and career trajectory in a nutshell, though I suppose nutshell is a relative term with a scientist because I tend to be long -winded.

I thought only us pastors are long -winded, Wade. Also, I heard it was dentists, so I'm...

Yeah, I was going to pick up on that and maybe we could finally get a different response.

Maybe, Anthony, Dr. Jensen might give us a different response.

Nathaniel, is a dentist a real doctor? I think

I had insulted my dad growing up because I asked a similar question. Because there was someone in the chair and he'd come home from work and kind of give us the report on the day.

Often have some entertaining stories, depending on who had come through the office that day. And was good at doing impersonations too, which of course, as kids, we found highly entertaining and would beg him to do those sorts of things.

But in the process of telling one of these stories, he was talking about, in a sense, analyzing,

I don't know, the vital signs or something other than teeth in this patient. And so I was like, we were kind of laughing.

I think he was kind of upset by it. I thought, you know, what are you doing? You're a dentist. And, you know, realized later in life, now, again,

I don't know if it was vital signs or blood pressure, what it is. I mean, these days when I go into the dental chair, my dad's since retired.

So I'm seeing dentists here in Kentucky as well. They check blood pressure and these sorts of things. So I have a better appreciation.

Yeah, if you're going to manipulate teeth, but also you deal with loss of blood, potentially if you're pulling teeth, there's just other things you have to pay attention to.

So I don't know how my dad would answer the question. But I think he's trying to get around Anthony.

Just he doesn't want to say, no, it's not a real doctor. I think he's agreeing with the atheists on the street.

That's okay. The humor behind this, Nathaniel, is the fact that when we go on the street, I will introduce

Anthony as Dr. Silvestro. I never introduce myself that way on the streets. And you're a dentist.

And he's a dentist. So what happens all the time is people will say, what kind of doctor are you?

He goes, well, I'm a dentist. And time after time people will go, that's not a real doctor. He'll explain he actually has a doctorate, like a real doctor.

I mean, you're a doctor. I like to be self -deprecating that sense, though, too, and say people come to me with medical questions.

I can't answer medical questions. I'm sorry. I'm not one of those doctors. Glennon Thomas, he's a president of Toronto Baptist Seminary.

And he was getting his doctorate. His daughter comes up to him with a paper cut.

Daddy, I cut my finger. And he's like, well, go to mommy, get a Band -Aid. And she's like, well, you're going to be the doctor.

And his wife walks in and says, no, honey, he's a different kind of doctor. He's a paper doctor.

He just writes papers for his doctor. So how would you answer the question,

Anthony? You know, hi, Dr. Silvestro. Yeah, I just tell him that's what my degree is.

But of course, when an atheist says it right there, they're trying to discredit you, to which

I have a whole series of other responses that I give to them. I ask him where their

PhD in investigative journalism is. I ask him all kinds of stuff, right, to throw him off.

They'll question the dentist about why I'm allowed to talk about evolution and why it didn't happen.

And yet they have usually a philosophy degree or a sociology degree or no degree at all. And they want to talk about why evolution is true.

Yeah, I love the kids that come up and they want to say, are you a PhD? No, I'm not.

So you can't talk about evolution. Okay. And what's your degree in?

Oh, high school. Sorry. That's always something like that. So I'll put my college -level biology against your high school biology.

So, you know, one of the things, because I want to get into your book, but I do have to say this again, even though for those who heard the podcast, because I'm just still a little bit humbled by this,

Nathaniel. I told you that I usually interview people on my Rap Report podcast that I know, or at least know personally know something about them.

And so I didn't know much about you. You and I met many years ago when you were in Jackson, New Jersey.

And so I called Jason Lyle to say, hey, you guys work together. What's Nathaniel like?

And this is what he said about you. I know you're going to disagree with it, but I got to let the audience know this is what he said.

Jason Lyle said that you're the smartest man he knows and you're able to take really complex things and make them simple.

And I basically said that that's what we all think of Jason as the smartest man we know who takes really complex things and make them simple.

So for Jason to be looking at you that way, well, I think Drew put it well.

Drew said, I think I'm going to need a dictionary for this episode. I'm going to tell Jason he's got to widen his social circles if I'm the smartest man he knows.

He must not know that many people. He's got to get out more.

I think he gets out fine. So let's get into the book a bit.

I know we got some people backstage who want to come in. And we're going to bring them in probably top of the hour.

But real quick, could you give an overview of the book? And I know we spent a lot of time on the rap report.

So I want to encourage people to go there and I'll put the links in the show notes. And let me preface it for folks.

If you get this book Trace, just understand that what Nathaniel does, he starts off from basically here's really easy to understand to really complex to understand.

So this book really is for anybody. And you could pick up what he's saying in the first couple chapters.

If you just need to stop there, that's fine. Just also know, Anthony held it up and it looks really thick. But it's like 300 pages and 100 pages of pictures.

There's a lot of colored pictures in here. So it makes it a whole lot easier to get through. Because my general rule is

I won't go past about a 250 page book. But this is okay. Wait a minute,

I got to go check the size of your book. I think yours is more than 250. So give us a thumbnail sketch of what the book is about, why you ended up writing it.

The book is first and foremost a history book that seeks to answer a question that nagged at me for many years growing up.

Coming from the history I took in high school. So that was, I'm not a history major. I don't think I took any history courses in college.

Last one would have been high school. And for perhaps many of you, that would be the same thing. The history

I learned, I'm going to guess is similar to yours. Primarily political, cultural, and religious in focus.

I say religious because I went to a Christian high school. So when you learn about European history or world history, it's still

Renaissance. Reformation is one of the major eras or segments of the history that we learn.

What's missing or what I missed in all of that was the story of the peoples themselves.

We can talk about ancient Rome and how Western civilization has a tremendous heritage that it draws from that great people.

And the things we still practice that they gave us or that the Greeks gave us. And we can learn about when Rome was founded.

When Alexander the Great went on his conquest. When the Roman civilization collapsed. What's missing from all of that is who the peoples themselves came from.

And then what happened to them after the civilization disappeared. So specifically, let's use Rome as an example.

History books will say, typically, that 753 or 700 BC is when the city of Rome was founded.

So we can trace the origin of the Roman civilization to that point. And then follow the expansion of the

Roman Empire or at least the Roman Kingdom. The first few centuries or so doesn't get much beyond a few hundred miles,

I think, north and south of the city. Then in the 200 BC is when the conquest really gets going in earnest. They eventually conquer what remains of Greece.

By the 100 years after Christ, the AD era, they're ruling from Great Britain down to North Africa over to the

Middle East. And then in the 400s AD is when the invaders from the East overthrow the Western Roman Empire.

And it falls. The city of Rome falls. So if you're a young earth creationist, you can ask the questions this way.

If you put the 700s BC for Rome and the flood, the restart of human civilization about 2500

BC, that's almost 2000 years in which there's no mention of the Roman people. So who do they come from?

What were they doing for two millennia before they finally founded that city? And similarly then, the other end of the

Roman story, once the Roman civilization falls, what happens to the people? Or to make it personal, are modern

Italians or modern Italian Americans, like Anthony, the genealogical descendants of these ancient people?

And the reason we never had these answers, I've since learned, is because you either need unambiguous, unbroken genealogical records taking you back to those

Roman people. And I'm not just talking about the emperors. I'm talking about the average person, which of course we don't have these records. Or you need

DNA. And the key evidence that we've needed to investigate this has only appeared in the last few years.

So just to sketch the history of DNA then, you said a brief overview of the book. So here's my brief overview of the book.

Identified as the substance of heredity, the leading hypothesis before that time was that it was proteins that encoded our traits where the substance of heredity really was, where it really lay.

And it took a lot of evidence to overturn that and get people thinking in terms of DNA. Then it took another several decades before the first complete, well, complete is a relative term, the first semi -complete human

DNA sequence was uncovered in 2001, of course. Big announcement with Francis Collins and Craig Ventner and Bill Clinton saying we've completed the human

DNA sequence. We completed it as much as we could with current technology. And the main tool that I look at in this book to investigate human history and to trace the stories, the history of modern peoples back to their ancient relatives and the interconnectedness among the various peoples around the globe is the male inherited

DNA, the Y chromosome. This gets passed on from fathers to sons. And so this book is, so it's first and foremost a history book where we take seven civilizations from each of the major regions of the globe,

Egypt for Africa, Rome for Europe, and so on, and try to ask and answer the questions, who did these people come from?

What happened to them after their civilization collapsed? And in doing so, we end up telling the story of the whole world because, as I lay out in the first few chapters with the basic principles behind this, everyone around the globe was interconnected in more ways than we would ever have anticipated.

And so I can tell you that most Western Europeans, most

Eastern Europeans, actually most Europeans in general and people of European descent like me, Caucasian Americans, European Americans, descend in terms of their

Y chromosomes not from the ancient Romans, that would be a minority, but from the recent migrants from Central Asia who came into Europe during the

Middle Ages and just so happened to multiply more than the indigenous Europeans did. It's analogous to what is happening right now with the influx of Middle Eastern migrants, refugees from the wars in the

Middle East and Syria and such who tend to be Muslim, Muslim tend to have larger families, the resident

Europeans who were there before them tend to be secular, areligious, don't marry, don't have kids, and there's this multiplicative discrepancy right now where the

Middle Eastern descent families are growing at a much rapid rate, their peoples are growing in size at a much rapid rate, or I should say the populations are increasing at a much more rapid rate than the indigenous

Europeans, indigenous is a relative term, the Central Asian Europeans and the indigenous

Europeans, and so even secular demographers are predicting what could be a significant demographic shift in just a few generations if this keeps up.

That seems to have already happened and probably has happened multiple times over in human history, but that's essentially the focus.

It's a history book, the story of the peoples using DNA and the apologetic relevance of this has multiple applications.

It's one of the strongest arguments in print for the recent origin of humanity for a number of reasons. You can see

Noah at the base of the tree. Another application is each family, any male can trace his ancestry with a

Y chromosome test back to specific sons of Noah. This rewrites, you mentioned before I came on, race and ethnicity, this rewrites how we think about race and ethnicity and there's all sorts of applications of this research to apologetic questions, to basic societal questions.

It's a history book and so much more. Yeah, and let me bring in Mr.

Peters. Welcome. I guess Andrew didn't get the message, he only wanted to watch in the background.

Oh, yeah. I guess not. Did he say that? I didn't see that. I'm just watching, you don't have to bring me in.

Oh, okay. Sorry, I didn't get my text messages there. I'm checking them.

I'm so sorry to interrupt. I was just watching but please proceed. That's fine.

So let me deal with a challenge, Nathaniel, that came up here. Someone in here says, of course it's a history book because it ain't science.

Obviously he didn't have my English teacher because she would have been very upset with the use of ain't. Are these metric exclusive?

How would you respond to Ian here? I think most historians would take offense at that and to be considered unscientific in their analyses would be viewed as a denigration of their discipline.

I would say it's both, actually. So it's real history, stuff that's happened and you can see the genetic echoes of known history.

And actually just to make a side comment here, why wouldn't they be intermingled? There are historical events, there's migrations that have happened, there's rape, pillage, conquest, all throughout human history.

How can that not possibly leave some sort of genetic echo in our DNA? And so it's nearly impossible to divorce the two of them.

And in fact, I think historians would label their discipline as a scientific one where they're using rigorous methods to try to uncover, using evidence to try to elucidate what exactly happened in the course of human history.

So, I understand, I think, the sentiment, he's trying to find a way to undermine what's going on because it's creationist, and that really is a good place to say how this book turns the tables.

One of the longstanding arguments against creation science is that, like he's trying to imply there, creationists don't actually do science if you press the evolutionists on why specifically creationists are the ones not doing science.

And what I mean is if you look at the published books they've done over the decades, you look at current textbooks as to what they say, you look at court decisions in which they've said you can't teach creation science in the public school system here in the

United States. What they almost invariably go back to is the statement that creation scientists do not make testable predictions.

And let's not get lost in the technical terminology. The concept is pretty straightforward. The view, the stereotype of creation scientists is that it's fundamentally a religious endeavor, not historical, not scientific, nothing.

It's pure religion, cloaked in the authority of science. And, again,

I could give you quotes from leading anti -creationists who would say that creation scientists fundamentally oppose to science because, he would say, creation scientists start with a conclusion that cannot be questioned, that cannot be tested, and then turn around and cobble together facts that support it and exclude facts that don't.

Fundamentally anti -scientific where, so, Douglas Futuma has long been a voice, an anti -creationist voice, evolutionary biologist and a textbook writer, leading textbook on evolution, popular textbook on evolution where he discusses some of this.

And in one of his anti -creationist books, that's what he brings up. Science is built on questioning established dogmas, on poking holes in the chinks of the armor, that's almost a literal quote there, from an established ideas where skepticism and inquiry and constant testing and reevaluating is the name of the game, and so creation science is the opposite of that because you're not supposed to question things.

This book, Replacing Darwin, has, again, as its thesis and its main argument is creation scientists, in fact, do make testable predictions.

I put some in print. Predictions meaning here's something that we'd expect to find in the future, if what

I'm saying is true. Mutation rates, the rate at which DNA changes from generation to generation, you should be able to predict that.

I don't think the evolutionists can do that. I put predictions in print, which I don't know the answer, that future experiments should reveal to be true or false.

And one of those predictions that I put in print in 2017 was that we should be able to see the stamp of the history of civilization in our

DNA. I didn't have the answer in hand at that time, that's what this book essentially represents. And it gives a whole bunch of other predictions by which the veracity or the error, in my views, can be exposed in the future.

So there's been multiple points at which my credibility has been put on the line. And really, the whole creationist enterprise is a process of finding chinks in the established armor of mainstream science, in which 99 % of the

PhD community agrees with. And here's this small group of creation scientists saying, hold on, wait a minute, there seems to be some shortcomings.

And really, what these two books represent is not just, here's where evolution has gone wrong, it's look what creation scientists are getting right.

Creation scientists are now taking the lead in major disciplines, human origins, human history, in ways that mainstream communities still hasn't realized or caught up with.

So that's what I take as the motivation behind that comment. And it's helpful because it highlights, again, probably one of the longest standing arguments against creation science, one of the last resorts and favorite fallbacks for the evolutionary science community.

And just to clarify that point, and you've probably experienced this on the street, street when you go up to someone, and evolution comes up, and, well, evolution is true.

And then you start raising questions. Well, how do you explain this? How do you explain the origin of sexual reproduction? How do you explain irreducibly complex structures, to use

Michael Bahey's term from Darwin's Black Box? Maybe they'll admit there's some problems we can't solve.

The typical tactic then, once you start getting someone to question what they hold true, is they'll push back against you.

Well, creation science isn't science. Even if you find holds of evolution, it's not science. And so even if you can poke holds in everything

I've said, that doesn't mean what you're saying is valid. You can't turn it around. That's what I mean, it's the last fallback.

Once you get to that stage in the discussion, that's what's invoked to finally try to shut the discussion down. And for many years

I'd say, or for certain stages of the creation evolution debate, perhaps that's been true. Again, there haven't been that many creation scientists out there, and so the first steps creation scientists typically took were defensive ones.

Because small community, few resources, the first thing you have to say is, wait, hold on, I understand this is what the community holds to, but wait.

And really, any scientific idea usually starts with, even as Doug Fatuma says, you're questioning and looking for chinks in the established armor.

And then once you've found some chinks and you get your footing, and more people join the cause, more minds now have enough of a community to start looking for a change of which route.

I view myself, really, as a second, third generation creation scientist. I'm building on the work that those come before me.

And so many of these arguments that have gone on for decades are becoming outdated.

Because it deals with an era of creation science that no longer matches reality, which is a game changer.

Because again, this is written into federal court decisions. You can't teach creation science in the public school classroom because it's supposedly not science.

And now creation scientists are completely reversing that, and really, I should say, creation scientists have been making testable predictions in geology, in astronomy, now biology is coming and becoming part of the game.

It's a really dramatic shift in how things have gone on compared to where we were 40 years ago.

I mean, I could be wrong, but when we study the Big Bang, I think that's really studying history, is it not?

Well, I mean, attempting to study something that never happened, but yeah. I mean, the whole thing, and what you just said there,

Nathaniel, is very similar to what Anthony gets with well, you're not a real doctor. It's the same kind of argument.

It's the, well, we're just going to reject everything because you claim to be doing science when you're not really doing science.

You know what kills me about this and what you said, Dr. Nathaniel, is that going through science classes,

I was a chemistry math double major, I was one class away from biology minor, I was actually one class away from a history minor as well in college.

I got a lot accomplished in four years. And so I had bought into evolution.

I had never heard anything else otherwise. But of course, as most people who go through evolutionary training in school, you know just the surface layer because the moment you probe any depth to it at all, you recognize that there's all kinds of catastrophic problems.

And what really upset me years ago is when I walked into the Creation Museum for the first time and started seeing science that I've never seen before.

Why is it that the secular scientists are so scared to present every option that's out there, all the science that has been done by good scientists for years?

There's a reason for that, right? They're doing their best to hold on to their sacred cow and ultimately suppress the truth about God and their sin.

We may trigger Anthony with this. Were you going to respond to that? I was going to say that question often gets in hostile form.

You did not. You gave it a friendly form. But I get a version of that in hostile form from newspaper reporters often or TV, whoever.

Secular reporters. And they'll phrase it in the more hostile way.

They'll start with so many people disagree with you. 99 % of PhD scientists by Pew Forum surveys or whatever survey you want to point to.

Why do you think? How can so many people possibly be wrong? And the options they give are either so is there a grand conspiracy where they all know the answer and they're hiding it or do you just reject science?

And I say neither of those. There's a third option which you've already in a sense illustrated and it's sort of been implicit in this discussion with court decisions and such.

It's basically illegal to teach creation science to expose students to another view.

How can anyone be surprised that all you get at the outcome of that after you only fed people if you feed them from kindergarten through PhD only evolution.

How are they going to come out any different? And the other point I wanted to make. So for Christians, yes, we can go to Romans 1 and say this is a form of suppressing the truth and unrighteousness.

And I think the surveys in a sense also prevent people from escaping that reality.

The same surveys that show 99 % of PhD scientists hold evolution or really

I think the question has to do with human origins and there's three options and they pick the one that's essentially naturalistic or God -guided evolution.

Not the one that would sound more creationist. They've also surveyed them on religious belief and I think the numbers are about 60 % of scientists cannot positively affirm belief in God and so the answers to this question are an atheist option some sort of deistic higher power option or then yes,

I believe in God. And so 60 % can't even say yes, I believe in God. So that's of course a dramatic discrepancy from the general populace and to say that religion has nothing to do with it

I think you can make that argument from the survey data itself. People don't even have to agree with me on Romans 1. The last thing

I wanted to say is why are people so resistant to this? I think in a sense it also goes back to this same evolution in, evolution out.

If all you hear is evolution and it's you then take it for granted it's all you ever know and you don't think about it.

It's just part of your world view. The things you know are true but you don't stop and think about them.

When someone questions that and I think we've all experienced this evolutionists, creationists alike you get a visceral reaction.

I think of a time when I was at ICR and we were filming for one of these

DVD projects and I think we had hired a secular company and the lady who was serving or manager there was asking me about this, something along these lines not a hostile question, just help me understand why this issue is so relevant and I forget the answer

I gave her but her response was, I knew there was more to this because she had observed visceral replies from people when this question came up she's like this isn't just a dry academic scientific debate, there's much more there has to be much more at stake here the way people are responding to it and so I feel like that's a part too because even for me let's say in theological issues

I remember when I was in Boston and I mean it's the northeast so it tends to be more liberal, theologically as well and I was

I had room with a couple and I think they would label themselves evangelical feminists

I had grown up complementarian but it's something I had taken for granted and not sat and thought through to derive from scripture and so when they engaged me

I had no answers because I hadn't sat down and learned the apologetics of it and I think I had a visceral reply because here someone's questioning a core element of my world view that I haven't sat and tried to defend or justify and ah, it's a visceral reaction because I got nothing else to go to I think there's that same for lack of a better term, psychological phenomenon that's going on, they go through school not even aware that there's this alternative view if it's mentioned, hey there's this other religious view but that's for church on Sunday when we go to the science classroom there's this wait a minute, there's scientists out there who are questioning things that I've taken for granted

I'm not surprised people react that way because of how the educational system has been structured as Christians we can agree there's core spiritual issues as well but I feel like even without that here's a core element of what someone holds to and believes never are forced to think through and justify it, at least in the face of opposition or alternative and so the first time they encounter it no surprise it's a visceral reaction

You said something else I wanted to point out the fallacy about 99 % of PhDs believe this right, and one of the things

I bring up on the streets is before 40 years ago 100 % of medical doctors thought that ulcers were caused by stress until one doctor thought outside the box and recognized that nearly every case of ulcers were from H.

pylori bacteria given antibiotic and it goes away you know and so that's just one of many many demonstrable areas in science where nearly everybody agreed and they were wrong yeah and you can use the same example at the beginning of evolution itself

Darwin himself says so in his book in the closing I think it's the closing chapter where he's anticipating objections to what he's saying and I haven't looked at this quote in a little while so I forget the exact word

I can read it for you if you want because I brought it up already we're thinking on the same track why if species have descended from other species by fine gradations do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms

I was thinking of a different one there's a later quote in his book where he says I'm going to look it up as I'm talking here but basically why does the vast majority of scientists disagree with me do all the most eminent

I'm going to find it here because it's a good quote why does everyone disagree with me and it goes through the reasons why he thinks his ideas are still worth considering because he recognizes this is a significant argument against his view

I'm on the Darwin online page you look it up I'll ask

Anthony this question we had this comment there Anthony is Dr. Fauci thank you for bringing that up Dr.

Fauci is not a real doctor but that's a whole other program in fact I'm much more of a medical doctor than Dr. Fauci as I called bluff in April of 2020 on all this nonsense with COVID, masks, everything that's absolutely right

Dr. Fauci called bluff on the masks in February ok, we have that in his emails now that they came out he did acknowledge it back then did you find the quote?

yes, so he says this is I have to read my Roman numerals chapter 14, conclusion why it may be asked if all the most eminent living naturalists and geologists rejected this view of the mutability of species

I realize I can share my screen right so you don't have to take my word for it let's try it so people can see this is just straight from Darwin online this is a great website because you can see how this sentence changes with subsequent editions of his book this is the 1859 version he says why it may be asked

I can scroll up here if you want to put the people down why it may be asked if all the most eminent living naturalists and geologists rejected this view so he's saying all the prominent people don't agree with me and I recognize you're going to say well why should we believe you and he goes through about four reasons why he thinks it's time for a change one of the

I guess spiciest examples that I kind of had to chuckle at because this is Victorian England is he basically says

I'm looking to the up and coming young scientists who will be able to accept this because old dogs can't learn new tricks that's my paraphrase but that's essentially what he's saying so if consensus determines what can be questioned and what can't evolution never gets off the ground by Darwin's own admission and what's remarkable is within 10 years you look at the 1869 edition or 71 whatever it is that sentence changes why until recently has the situation been true so someone wants to say well there's a consensus

Darwin admitted there's a consensus but that didn't stop him from questioning it and then overturning it and reversing it in about 10 years there's a whole other discussion that would be interesting

I think there was a British journal talking about the history of science so not a creationist place that was talking about other social dynamics at play in Darwin's time how this was an era of history when science was going from being a hobby basically of the wealthy to a professional discipline and the hobbyists were the older generation and the professional ones were the up and coming generation and you had this social and generational discrepancy that was a big factor in this and you can ask the question if you didn't have that factor of course now we live in an era where science is almost exclusively professional with millions of dollars, billions of dollars is the

NIH budget hanging on this in the United States and of course even more around the globe how much does that play a role in where people land and how quickly or slowly paradigms can shift and thinking along that lines we shouldn't forget that Dr.

Fauci did get 350 million dollars in royalties from pharmaceutical companies so that doesn't play into things

I'm sure I know we got some folks backstage you held up the book earlier but let me plug it again is if you want to get a copy of the book

Traced which is what Nathaniel has written go to masterbooks .com

masterbooks .com use the coupon code TRACED22 TRACED22 gets you 10 % off of the book until July 4th so go get it now well get it when you can because I think it did sell out

I think they didn't realize how quickly this was going to sell but it sold out

I encourage you guys to go and get that make sure you get it when it gets back and reprint which I think the next printing is coming out mid -June

I can add update there I'm sorry to interrupt but the printer surprisingly said it will come out sooner and should be in the

AIG warehouses by tomorrow Friday and I assume the same time then for masterbooks as well

Amazon might take a little bit longer to update so that's for the print version ebook is still there I should say if anyone has purchased the earlier version of the

Kindle the so again we talked about the color plates being essential there's 235 of them like 175 pages worth so if you're on an ebook flipping back and forth between the color plate section which is

I think between chapters 11 and 12 some people had trouble finding it you had to do a lot of flipping now it's been hot linked where you can just you're in the text whatever 35 click takes you there click back so if you've purchased the

Kindle and someone just asking this today on Facebook you can go back and there's ways you can update it and get the hot linked version and I'm also happy to say there's an audio book version we had a professional read the text of the book it's in the

I should say it's an enhanced audio book because again the color plates are so significant you if you buy the audio book you get him reading the text and you get the

PDF then of the color plates to have next to this as you're listening to it wow that's cool that's good yeah I had two bookmarks so I get flipped back and forth

Justin go ahead I have a quick question is it am I pronounced is it Dr. Jensen or jeanson

I respond to all those we typically say jeanson like blue jeans but I've responded to many different things he asked me and I said it looks like it's a long e but I think

I pronounced with a short e and he didn't correct me so I don't know okay so I've kind of long thought that due to the second law of thermodynamics and entropy that people who lived say in Abraham's day or Moses day or going back even you know earlier to Adam that they were far more intelligent than are we it seems like physically we're in genetically speaking we are degenerating we're degenerating physically and mentally now granted we have spikes in the curve you have you know some people that come along today that are brilliant have off the chart

IQs but is it is it fair to say that generally speaking we are that the ancients were that's ancient you know but they were far more intelligent on average than are we now we've been the beneficiaries of some key discoveries and technological advances but just because we can build a space shuttle doesn't mean that we're smarter than I mean they built the pyramids back then which is just mind -blowing to me so is that is that a fair are we generally speaking are we degenerating physically and mentally

I think the answer is yes my basis for it would be a synthesis of science and I'd say excuse me synthesis of scripture and I would say the latest creation research which

I think is superior to the mainstream research and my thought is basically if you go back to the beginning

God creates two people Adam and Eve and if you try to trace our DNA differences back to them

I'd say the vast majority of the differences between me and you between me and any any other person out there were not due to mutations but were created in Adam and Eve for a purpose mutations and excuse me

I should also say then the vast majority if not the entirety of our DNA is functional which of course that concept mainstream science has undergone a dramatic revolution with when

DNA the DNA sequence was first published it was widely proclaimed was filled with junk useless sequences left as evolution about 10 years later they did biochemical experiments as well actually we can find biochemical evidence for function in 80 % of the

DNA and again that's just that's scratching the surface there's no genetic experiments there's experiments we couldn't or shouldn't do most of the building of the body is happening in the womb so surely there's a ton of DNA that is active and switched on during embryonic development that gets switched off and never used again because you're not building your nose again you're not building your hands again when you're an adult so to be able to functionally assess certain regions you'd have to scientifically knock out stuff in the embryo there's experiments that you would need to do to assess for function that we shouldn't do because you're gonna be killing human lives to do it anyway so it's remarkable to me that just with biochemistry you can say hey there's a lot going on even in these cells and culture that we can isolate from adults so all that to me there's a trajectory of yes

I think from a scriptural perspective from accounting DNA differences perspective and just from a purely functional perspective there's a ton of function in our

DNA that's consistent with it being created on Adam and Eve and of course it's been degenerating with time yeah and complementary to that even the evolutionary community would talk about the rate of mutation is high enough in humans that our species looks like it's headed for extinction that's not any again these are from secular scientists who have no creationist leanings whatsoever saying it looks bad and in fact

I'd say the dominating ethos of modern medical science is to look for genetic causes of virtually everything and I've even changed my view on some of this when

I was in graduate school I felt like people invoking genetics was synonymous with we don't have a better explanation so we just hand wave genetics but now looking at having been in creation science and genetics research from a creationist perspective for 12 -13 years

I'm now coming around more to perhaps we are at a threshold where there's been enough mutations since Adam and Eve where there is a lot of genetic diseases that are arising now because we've run out of compensatory good versions so and just to explain we all have two versions of our

DNA we all have a lot of mutations but often times these are masked because dad gives you one version mom gives you another so if dad gives you a mutation mom might still have a good version that compensates for your degenerate version so dominant recess of that whole concept in genetics that plays a role in disease as well so perhaps we're now at a stage where we don't have enough good versions left to compensate for the mutated ones that's something

I've come around to as well the other thing that comes to mind because I had a discussion of exactly this question with a colleague in Texas who was working

I think with the Army Corps of Engineers he said I look smart modeling water tables but I'm building

I didn't write the program I'm building on the work of so many that have come before me and we were basically reaching the exact same conclusion collectively humanity can combine our knowledge sort of a reversal of Babel I mean what's happening at Babel look at what these people speaking the same language can do basically nothing can stop them from building this tower building the city

I'm going to confuse their languages what a tremendously effective judgment that lasted 4 ,000 years it's taken 4 ,000 years for humanity to come back together and start sharing knowledge to see this dramatic increase in technology you compare life now to life 100 years ago 600 years ago it's a huge difference because I think there's this collective sharing so yes

I would say I think you can make a strong argument Adam Noah the early patriarchs were to a man much smarter than any individual alive today and again yeah there are savants and rare exceptions autistic people who often deficiencies here that are compensated by genius over here but it seems like humanity person for person was smarter back then humanity person to person right now it's just that we don't see it we think of ourselves as smarter and I was in calculus class as an undergraduate in the calculus class of all places and the professor draws a graph showing how our increase in knowledge is just grown exponentially in the last recent era of human history turns around we don't need

God just sort of spontaneous in the middle of that class but there's this sense of we're so much smarter and I think the answer is because we've shared knowledge but to a person

I think we're dumber than our ancestors were and we're degrading physically as well and have more well lifespan is shorter than our ancestors were as well and you can make a case that the change in lifespan is also due to genetics it matches basically if you graph out

Genesis 5 Genesis 11 it followed Genesis 5 they hover around 900 years and then it drops off and sort of an exponential decay curve down to a lifespan that we see today so I think all that those are valid observations that sounds a lot like what you're bringing up is the

I forget who wrote it the book genetic entropy yes might be a resource for folks to look at I know we got some folks backstage that have been waiting patiently to ask you some questions before we get there though there is a question in the chat that we should get to I did have some that I saw it was earlier yeah and so so this is for you

Dr. Jensen Herman Mays says most of the Y chromosome differences are errors and not mutations and what

Jensen is measuring here are errors between fathers and sons not mutations so he's asking let me let me

I'm going to share my screen again here real fast because I'll give a short answer here and there'll be an answer coming in the coming weeks

I've got it we've got a video series we've started here I thought

I clicked the share screen button here it comes okay I have to see it come up on my end there we go well there was a pause on my end before I could click anything okay so this is the now

I can see my mouse this is the Answers in Genesis I guess got to scroll down here here we go

Answers in Genesis YouTube channel so if you just find the Answers in Genesis YouTube channel I'll click on it here so we can watch it how you do this you go here this is the home page for AIG then you click on playlists up I got a video playing sorry not what

I was trying to do and one of the first playlists as of right now is this traced DNA's big surprise that's where you can find subsequent videos we released about six which correspond with the competing with myself with Simon Turpin talk anyway we've released about I'll just go back to where I had the playlist six videos when we had the initial release of the print version we're going to release we've already recorded about four more dealing with subsequent chapters in this book and then so that'll bring us up to about 10 videos again that's how you find this video series bring us up to about 10 videos then we'll have about five videos of the science behind traced which here's the backstory to how we got where we are here's the decade of creation research that's led to where we are this sequence of predictions fulfillments predictions fulfillments which is what evolutionists have demanded for 40 years which just comes from the basic philosophy of science which creationists are delivering and now exceeding what evolution has been able to do and then we'll have probably three two or three maybe four depending on how many more critics respond responses to specific criticisms of which this is one so that's why

I gave the backstory now the short answer what's one of the lines of evidence at the heart of this book is the so again let me let me back up and set the scientific context the primary tool that we're using to investigate human history in this book is the

Y chromosome the male inherited DNA passed on from fathers to sons and the question is how fast or slow does that occur mutations occur it acts like a biological clock and so if the clock is ticking fast too fast for evolution there you have an anti evolutionary argument and perhaps also a procreation argument the way you do this experiment and it's been done multiple times is you get the

DNA sequence of fathers you get it of sons you just count the number of differences and then that gives you the rate of mutations per generation so that's that's step one you've got your rate and really the the equation will end up using as a form a basic high school equation distance equals rate times time or genetic differences equals rate times time we've got the rate the time you can insert from evolution from creation say okay given the rate of change how fast or how many differences will we get in 6 ,000 years how many differences in 200 ,000 years according to evolution and then you compare it to what we actually know

I realize I can share my screen again to bring up a paper that I published along these lines where I went through the evolutionary literature where this has been done there's actually a whole backstory to this where the evolutionists have measured this there's high quality studies low quality studies and pull up my screen again here truth is stranger than fiction the evolutionists have so here's the paper you can find it at our website answersresearchjournal .org

there's a key table I'm going to pull up for you here but it might actually be

I realize I got a weird setting my browser I have my apologies I'm going to put this in PDF form and then I'll pull up the

PDF and we can see it easier that way the evolutionists literally filtered out data that did not agree with their conclusions

I said I would give a short answer but this is getting longer it's because there's so much crazy stuff that happens

I can't believe they would do such a thing I can't believe they would do such a thing they're so honest and not motivated by agenda

I'm surprised I guess having worked with your average I guess secular scientist in graduate school

I guess my view is these people aren't dumb and I don't think they view themselves as we've got to protect this idea it's just that's all people know that's all the mainstream community is taught so there is no alternative that they know of so we already know from archaeology, geology evolution's true here's the time scale and so we find something in genetics that contradicts it well we must be wrong and you can find another relevant quote here

I think there was a project called the 1000 Genomes Project where they sampled thousands of DNA from thousands of people around the globe this study included about 1200 men, 2016 paper in Nature Genetics where they look at the

Y -chromosomes from these 1200 men and they say in the supplemental methods that one of the ways, one of the checks on their research was to look at the

Native American Y -chromosomes and to look when they branched off from Asian Y -chromosomes and they basically say if it comes out to 15 ,000 years ago, this is, they use the term sanity check, how do we know that we're on the right track?

Our sanity check is to see if it lines up with what we know from archaeology and geology and that's how they do it.

Okay so this is one of the key tables from the paper this will lead now, this is again sort of a long backstory to this specific question.

There were two studies, I give the references here and you can find them in the paper if you want to look up the details where they they tried to measure father sons or in this case this initial study

Xu et al. 2009 they had two Chinese men of known genealogical relationship, they had a common ancestor in the 1800s they got the

Y -chromosomes of the two men counted the number of differences and translated this to a per generation mutation rate and the rate right here, these are numbers that are not necessarily comprehensible the point is they got a slow rate of mutation that fit evolution.

What they did though was use low quality data the technical term is coverage which we can get into if people want to get into the technical data behind it, it's well established in the secular literature that low quality, low coverage will miss

DNA differences another study from 2015 using about I think it was 274

Icelandic pedigrees and there were 750 or so Icelandic men yes we have this common ancestor in the 1700s or whatever the number is

Iceland is not a very large country in terms of population size, fairly detailed genealogical records, great place to do this kind of study once again though they used low quality low coverage sampling and they got once again a slow mutation rate these two studies are the ones that I'm saying point towards a recent origin for humanity it's one of the many lines of evidence pointing towards I would argue a recent time scale this study was the one where they had about 31 either father -son pairs or brother -brother pairs they had high coverage aka high quality

DNA sequence and they found a rate that was 10 times faster now I say they found a rate that was 10 times faster this is the paper where they literally say in the methods we found a rate that was too high so we created a filter to pull out data that didn't match evolution and I'm surprised they actually said that Herman Mays' comment is about this paper and this paper was a study where it's exclusively focused on measuring mutation rates it's not just the

Y chromosome this was 50 Danish trios, father mother, offspring and the primary focus of the paper is the rate at which

DNA changes in the 99 % of our DNA that we get from both parents and they were meticulous in their methods again it's high quality high coverage, they show graphs where the rate of the father passing on mutations is higher than the rate of the mother, with older fathers more mutations than younger fathers almost no stone unturned that's my point it's explicitly a mutation rate study, they look with excruciating detail at the

DNA inherited from both parents they look at different types of DNA mutations there's single letter changes there are chunks of DNA that change where let's say the

DNA is copied and for whatever reason the cellular machinery skips five letters, it's a deletion or it's an insertion, there's these sorts of things that happen there's large, there's anyway, there's all sorts of DNA changes that occur, they look at these in great detail, they also say something about the

Y chromosome so they've just done this exhaustive analysis for 99 % of our DNA, they look at the Y chromosome they say we looked at the chunk changes small insertions or deletions indels is what they're called they give a rate for that, but silent on the single letter change for the

Y chromosome which is what these studies have been looking at, that's the main focus of almost all

Y chromosome studies when you look at human history, the number of single letter differences swamps every other type of difference in terms of the sheer number of them, so number one here then, this study of the

Danish trios, there was about I think 17 father -son pairs in the 50 families they don't say a word about the single letter change which was this mysterious omission from the paper now,

I'm reporting a rate here because they published a family tree based on the

Y chromosomes with a scale bar, and so from that figure itself you can extract from those data a mutation rate, so what

Herman Mays did then, so he of course recognizes this is way too fast for evolution, he emails the authors says hey these creationists are using your data to argue for a young earth time scale and first of all,

Herman Mays won't share the details of their entire exchange, number two the authors, he admits, confirm yes indeed there are 17 father -son pairs and I found them thirdly the authors say we think that this is due to sequencing error now if anyone's ever done science anyone's tried to publish a scientific paper

I mean this is science 101 nobody cares what anyone's opinion is,

I mean I had a colleague in graduate school who would say he was talking about how he reads scientific papers, and pretty much every single scientific paper has four sections introduction, so setting up the question they're trying to solve, materials and methods, which they say here's here's the lot number of the kit that we use to isolate the

DNA and here's the methodology so anyone can reproduce it then they have the results section and then they have a discussion and so he mostly seriously said to me, he says the only thing

I read in papers is the materials and methods he said materials and methods is what the people did, results is what they want you to think they found and discussion is unvarnished rampant speculation which he thought was worthless so when people do science, if you look at scientific studies, all that matters is the data nobody cares what you think about it, it's an opinion, you can publish an opinion piece but there's a big old banner that says opinion when you publish it it's the data that matters, so number one again, in the original paper, it's odd that some of the key data was left out it slips through in one of their figures and that's what

I used to extract this number, number two Herman Mays asks them, what do you make of this, this is their second chance to simply publish the data and they don't, they give apparently whatever, we don't know all that they said because Herman Mays won't share the extent of the email his private correspondence, they simply say we think it's sequencing errors and number three then

Herman Mays apparently thinks this is sufficient as if scientific debates are adjudicated by what someone says that's pseudoscience and he knows it, that's not how you adjudicate debates, now

I can tell you, so here we are we've gone through two rounds of Moretti et all not publishing the data, what are they hiding?

I can tell you we have independent lines of evidence to be able to test this, there's multiple independent lines of evidence that I go through in the book and in my papers that show this mutation rate to be true so the answer to the question

Herman Mays says these are sequencing errors his claim is based on someone's opinion it's pseudoscience instead of actually testing so number one, they could resolve this by releasing the raw data, but they haven't number two, he could do an experiment to try to evaluate this which he doesn't, number three

I have done multiple experiments to resolve this directly, or I should say indirectly there's all sorts of ways you can evaluate the actual rate of change, which

I've done in subsequent papers and in this book and really one way to evaluate it is to look for the signatures of human history all throughout our

DNA, you can see it in the Y chromosome based family tree, there's an echo of NOAA and on and on the lines of evidence go it's a really remarkable case study in how the leading critics of creation science respond to a large body of data they don't engage the testable predictions,

I've given ways for people to falsify what I'm doing, there's predictions I make that you can go out and test and say hey your predictions didn't come true, it's wrong instead they're using these by their own definition pseudoscientific methods to try to undermine it and again, these are the leading voices in opposition which

I think is remarkable, they're basically doing what they've accused creationists of doing, relying on authority saying certain things can't be questioned not doing experiments, not looking for chinks in the established armor there's another quote

I can add here too because he published some additional correspondence with them, one of the other things the author says is, well take a look at some of the other studies out there and see

I don't think you can find evidence from the other studies out there that would support this fast rate of mutation one of the studies some of the studies that they cite include this low quality study, also this study where they literally filtered out data in opposition, so even these own authors don't seem to be familiar with the

Y chromosome mutation rate literature or the circularity built into some of these measurements, so he's asking the authors they don't even seem to know what's going on in the field which is remarkable to me and they don't publish the data, that would be the simplest way to resolve this debate, just give it to us in a transparent way so we can all see it, and they've had two chances to do it and they haven't so there's my long winded answer and I probably actually gave most of what

I was going to put in the video, but there you go well that's great, thank you before we get to the guests, the one thing

I do want you to do for people who want to pick up your book I am fascinated personally by the

Y chromosome stuff, but if you could give a list a quick list of like what are the top three or four things that the

Y chromosome does from a creationist perspective yes, so first thing

I'd say is, this is let me bring in a couple concepts here, there's apologetic concepts and I'm going to start with a non -apologetic concept that is relevant

I'd say this book is now the cutting edge of historical research we're making new discoveries about pre -columbian history that no one else can because they've got the wrong time scale the hero of this story is the 4500 year time scale because it creates a framework where we can confirm known history and then for that big black box we call it the pre -columbian era which they call pre -history because written records are basically absent aside from inscriptions from some of the

Mayan kings and such what actually is going on even in mainstream archaeology this is undergoing a revolution, the book 1491 gives you that mainstream account of the revolution that's occurring, there's even more explosive stuff going on based on genetics and it's creation scientists who are taking the lead so if you want to know what's actually happened in human history, this is the book that does it, and again it's not me it's the creation science model that says, aha all the pieces fall into place and now we can push forward in recovering history that's been lost so from a purely historical perspective this is the book, this is the research that's taking the lead, so that has apologetic ramifications, it's creation scientists who are doing science

I may have told this story before I think talking with Andrew, but there was a pastor who has been kind of on the fence on the edge of the earth and once he realized it's not just anti -evolution that creation scientists are doing, they're pushing the envelope, pushing the boundaries of scientific knowledge he got excited, this is a new era, and it answers again these long -standing objections, so there's my one or two big points it is the cutting edge of research, it answers long -standing objections, it rewrites how we think about race and ethnicity, number three, it can connect any person and so the last table in this book, color plate 235

I think, is a table where if you've taken a Y -chromosome test you can say, here's a result, here's the son of Noah you come from, here's the chapter you can go to find out your personal history, because all of us have a very messy history, human history is interconnected and wild beyond what

I've predicted, there's that element, there's strong arguments strongest argument I'd say in print for the recent origin of humanity, there's applications to missions, and I've had some missionaries contact me, and I should share this as well, sorry, here's my pitch again, if you want to participate in future research, or if you are a missionary go to answers in genesis .org

slash go slash traced there you go, I just put the show notes together for the rap report podcast where I, so, yes answers in genesis .org

slash go slash traced you can scroll down to your name, email comment, goes directly to my inbox

I've had over 450 people contact me this way, including some missionaries one guy is in New Guinea saying, it'd be great then to be able to translate the scriptures for these people and say, here's the son of Noah you come from, in Genesis 10 here's where your story starts and I can add to that,

I'm finding an increasing number of examples of indigenous histories, this is who we say we came from, this is when we say we arose, these are the people we say we came from, and you find the echo of that in the

Y -chromosome tree so, you think of apologetics in an indigenous setting yes, what you say is true and on top of that, now that we can match up with the

Y -chromosome, I can say, and here's where we can trace you back specifically to this man in Genesis 10 this ancestor so, a bible translator made this come and he said, we can show it's not just a white man's book, which is so the guy who contacted me is

Caucasian, working among a Melanesian group, here's where your story starts so there's all sorts of applications,

I sketched a few of them there history, prehistory rewrites of the creation and evolution debate age of the earth, race and ethnicity missions, personal ancestry find

Noah at the base of the tree I think I sketched most of my talking points there, so thank you for the opportunity to sketch my talking points so did you figure out that Jesus is not pasty white?

that's a good question, and I don't know that we can answer that question with a

Y -chromosome he left no descendants, he never married and there's of course that...

here would be a better question, actually you brought that up as a joke, but this would be a half joke can we predict whether the

Israelites are black? because they always the black Hebrew Israelites always appeal to DNA, proving that the

Israelites were black so would we be able to use that? that's a good question, and I mean,

I don't look black, I'm just saying but then again, they say I'm a fake Hebrew, so yes, I think some of the some of the stuff

I've seen from that movement and their attempts to line it up with a Y -chromosome tree, they'll try to say that the dominantly sub -Saharan

African branches are connected to Abraham, I think we can say that the dominant branches in sub -Saharan Africa today come from Ham however and maybe this is a good chance to bring up this map so number one, we do have the genetic echo of the line of Abraham, and probably

Isaac and Jacob in the Y -chromosome tree and the reason I can say it so confidently is because we have in Genesis 10, a very detailed genealogy from Shemham and Japheth and there's differences, in fact let me pull up the images here, some of these from the book here that make this point

Genesis 4, for whatever reason or I should say Genesis 4 simply records what happened in terms of genealogical descent after the flood the number of descendants listed for each of these groups is different because apparently that's how the history played out now

I'm going to do a share screen I think I can show it better than just saying it this is one of the diagrams from the book,

I'll rotate it here so that you can read it and then I'll rotate it again this is so we can read it normally,

I'll zoom in here so you can see the names, Shem in blue Japheth in green, Ham in pink

I'm going to rotate this because then you can see top to bottom Shem, I've drawn this out visually, carefully so that you can see

Shem's genealogy is longer than Japheth's or Ham's and you can see that level of genealogical resolution in this tree you can count off generation by generation the descendants from Noah through Shem down to Peleg, and of course later on in Genesis let's see if I can advance some of these slides here

Genesis 11 extends Shem's genealogy down even further, here we go so Shem, you get just down to Peleg in Genesis 10

Genesis 11 gives you his descendants down to then of course the rest of Genesis, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, you can count off those generations in the family tree very specifically and here's the other reason

I wanted to bring up this, I'm going to go back a few slides the branch that we labeled

T and probably L are both the descendants the genealogical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob here's the distribution, actually let me back up a little bit more, here we go here's the distribution of T which

I think may be in fact Jewish through Jacob, maybe even Judah and you find it in sub -Saharan

Africa, the Lemba people of sub -Saharan Africa dark skinned, sub -Saharan African looking people with Jewish practices to this day there's a percentage of them who belong to group

T, you can see there's some in Chad in fact I spoke with a Muslim guy in Chad, I have corresponded with him some, because of course the

Muslims are interested in their genealogical descent from Ishmael Somalis, Egyptians, Middle Easterners Europeans so one of the main branches that I think we can very clearly and unambiguously tie back to Abraham himself is found across different ethnic and so -called racial lines so the answer to who is

Jewish it's Asians, Europeans Africans, it's gone out through and that doesn't even show the new world stuff,

I've omitted the new world presence of T, just because we're trying to look at indigenous history, but you can find it all over the place, so I don't think any ethnic group can claim we are the true shade of the skin tone the true descendants excuse me, this is how the

Jews back then looked, because they've become all sorts of people today and going back in time my best guess would be that they look like middle brown, middle

Easterners today in Jesus' time but racial change, ethnic change can happen so quickly it's hard to be definitive and precise without clearer data going back to that exact point in history yeah, now

I'm going to make a prediction here I predict that unless Nathaniel has to end at the top of the hour,

I predict we're going into Anthony time, so what Anthony time is is when we go over the two hour mark because he's usually the long winded one and so I've been very good tonight so let me real quick, before we bring

David in who's in the backstage, and then we have Dan back there as well, let me just give a quick word to our sponsor

MyPillow MyPillow sponsors this show, you can go to MyPillow .com

use the promo code SFE stands for Striving for Eternity to get discounts, they have discounts on all of their products there, that lets them know that you heard about it through us so if you would, go to MyPillow .com

or you can call 1 -800 -873 -0176 1 -800 -873 -0176 1 -800 -873 -0176 use promo code

SFE to get your discount on whatever products you want to get from them get a great night of sleep and another thing we want to let you know is the book

Sharing the Good News with Mormons Sharing the Good News with Mormons, you can get at strivingforeternity .org

35 % off with the promo code LDS that stands for Latter Day Saints we're getting rid of our inventory of them, so we are going to be selling them until they sell out so if you want to get the copy of Sharing the

Good News with Mormons go to strivingforeternity .org use promo code LDS when you get that book let me bring in a young man who's been waiting, actually waiting weeks to speak with you someone that many will know here

David, welcome back to the show for folks who know, you're somewhat a regular, at least in the chat and some people were commenting that you were quiet in the chat, they didn't realize you were coming on live yes hi folks, hi

Dr. Jensen, first of all, thank you so much for arranging this and thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask my questions to Dr.

Jensen just for folks who are watching, I'm going to put some of us backstage so that we can get just the two of you up I'm going to try and do that okay, sounds good

I don't know if I can remove myself you can, I've done it before in my own streams but then the audio doesn't keep recording so I'll be quiet up here alright, that sounds good, so Dr.

Jensen thank you so much for taking some time to answer my question so I know I've spoken to you in the past about your 2015 paper on the mitochondrial

DNA so basically for those who haven't read his paper, basically

Dr. Jensen attempts to calculate the mitochondrial most recent common ancestor to about 6 ,000 years ago and one of the things that he acknowledges on his paper is that he uses three sets of data, mostly from Ding et al and he says that the only remaining caveat to the present result is whether the mutation rate reported in Ding et al 2015 represents a germline rate rather than a somatic mutation rate.

To confirm germline transmission in the future the DNA sequences from at least three successive generations must be sequenced to demonstrate that variants were not artifacts and mutations assimilated in the non genital cells so basically

I emailed Dr. Ding and basically he confirmed that it is probably a mixture of both the somatic and germline mutations so based on that, does that throw your results into question?

Yes, a good question. I think it would be helpful here just for the audience to give some of the back story. And if you want,

I can read the entire email for you. I can read the whole email for the audience.

Yeah, we'll go to that in a minute. Okay, sure. Let's see if I can do a share.

There we go. Just to review the history we're looking at, so the book Traced, to distinguish what's going on here, and this is something that will come up in the video series.

We're going to continue doing some of the science behind Traced. I'll review some of this history as well. The book

Traced focuses on the male inherited DNA, the Y chromosome passed from fathers to sons. The research I started with, and that's

David's question here, relates to the female inherited DNA. I say female given as best as we can tell.

There's still some discussion about whether males might make a contribution. Males and females both have mitochondrial DNA, but females pass it on, due to cell biology at least, it seems sperm cells have mitochondria, but they don't seem to penetrate the egg.

Anyway, so it looks like a record of maternal inheritance. And this is the type of DNA that I started looking at about, well, in 2009 when

I started working on this, trying to find the questions, one of the main data sets that was available and you can see here from the title was thousands of mitochondrial

DNA sequences from species around the globe, including humans. So here's a great tool then to investigate the history of life on this planet, including human life.

And so this paper, most of this paper that I published in 2013, this is some of the backstory that leads up to the 2015 paper that we're discussing, was trying to come up with a predictive model for mitochondrial

DNA function. How do we explain the differences among the various species in their mitochondrial

DNA, female inherited DNA? Again, looking at this massive data set that includes humans, but so much more.

And to make a long story short, what I landed on was that the vast majority of differences among these species seem to have been created.

This predicts that those differences, I'm scrolling down here in the paper, would be functional. And then at the end of the paper, there was a handful of species for which at that time the mitochondrial mutation rate had been measured.

So this is similar to what I was discussing with the Y chromosome, except that instead of measuring the

Y chromosomes of a parent and the offspring, you measure the mitochondrial DNA. And this had been done then for several species.

Trying to get it in the screen here. And then zoom in. I'm going to zoom in on one so you can see the details.

There we go. And I can go to each of the four sections here.

Roundworms, so Canarhabditis, that's the technical name for it there. Over here you have Drosophila.

I'll scroll down here to the lower left in a moment, which was Daphnia, which is a water flea.

So you've got roundworms, fruit flies, water fleas, and then down here would be the human data. And in each case, so in some cases, the

Canarhabditis, also the Drosophila, and the water flea were multi -generational mutation accumulation experiments in which you just grow these animals in the laboratory.

You get the sequence of the ancestral generation mitochondrial DNA, you get the many generations later, the offspring.

You count the number of mitochondrial DNA differences. There's your mutation rate, and you plug it into your basic distance equals rate times time, or differences equals rate times time formula.

So you've got your measured rate, so many mutations per generation. You multiply it by the evolutionary time of origin, 18 million years, or the creationist time of origin.

So I was using a broader number. Some creationists will say that 10 ,000 years instead of 6 ,000 years.

And then here's the actual number of differences among the various species or individuals in the species.

In this case, I think I was looking across a couple different species. So in this genre, and then for humans, it's within humans.

So in this case, the rate of mitochondrial mutation was such that after 10 ,000 years, you'd get 1 ,000 to 2 ,000 differences, which is exactly what we find among these various species, where after 18 million years, you just get this massive number.

The mutation rate is very fast in many ways as the implication. And the black bars represent the statistical range.

Same scenario held true then for fruit flies,

Drosophila. Scroll up. There we go. Again, after 10 ,000 years, you get up to maybe 1 ,000, falls within the range of what we actually see for fruit flies.

You get a much larger number for evolution. Same song, third verse for the water fleas.

So basically, you're trying to use the same model to calibrate it with other species to make sure that it's not an outlier?

I'm getting to that. So the way I built up the argument was, you found a consistent pattern, again, here for the water fleas, slight underestimate.

Actually, what it turned out was, I've got another calculation for this in the book, Replacing Darwin. Water fleas have a large amount of insertion and deletions as well.

And so, once you incorporate all that, the numbers line up for the young earth creation model. Way over prediction for evolution.

And then here's the human data. That's the background to the study we're just mentioning. Now, in this case, the human data was based on, and I've got this big old table here in the paper, probably about 12 to 15 studies of not the entire mitochondrial

DNA sequence, but a subsection called the D -loop or the hypervariable region. Anyway, you can find all those specific details across these 12 plus studies or so.

And we found a similar answer there. Okay, so then you fast forward. Pull up another paper here.

2015. So here you've got multiple independent species all giving the same answer, which we're talking about across animal phyla, which argues that this conclusion is true.

It leads to testable predictions, which I put in print in Replacing Darwin. Here's this 2015 paper that David had quoted from.

We've got three studies that actually measure the mutation rate in the whole genome.

Ding here, that's the first author of that 2015 study, which had this high rate that happened to just agree with the studies that came prior.

And so what David had done was to email the authors and say what did you make of this? And so we had a

Facebook correspondence where David was asking about this and then had said, here's what the authors say.

We believe these are not valid mutations, in which I stopped communicating. Yeah. At that point, well,

I was going to answer this here. So the reason I stopped communicating was because just as with Herman May's example, I realized we had departed from the realm of science, where we're just discussing some author's opinion instead of actually doing data.

And that, I thought there's no point having this discussion any further because we're not discussing science anymore.

It really doesn't matter. In fact, the quote you gave me was, we believe these were these. I'm like, it's a statement of faith.

This is a complete role reversal in the creation evolution debate, where the side that's criticizing is citing statements of faith and the other side, my side, is saying, let's do some experiments.

I put some predictions in print. There's agreement among multiple lines of evidence. We can go on to further subsequent experiments in 2016 where the autosomal

DNA confirms indirectly what we're seeing here. And so I would say that the fulfillment of what

I was saying at the end of the paper were, how do we know this is multigenerational? We've got lines of evidence from other species.

In fact, we could go to the 2016 paper where it wasn't just across animal phyla, but also across kingdoms.

So fungi mutation rates also bore out the same sort of thing. And again, for animal species, there's multigenerational mutational measurements.

So all these lines of evidence together argue that this is in fact a valid rate and frankly, scientifically, it doesn't matter what

Ding thinks. He can just publish the data. And that's what resolves scientific debates. It's pseudoscience to think otherwise.

Okay, yeah, sure. Thank you. I know a couple other people are waiting in the back, so I'm just going to end it with one last question about your paper, and then

I'll be done, I promise. In your paper, you say that two major hypotheses, so this is regarding to the

African genetic diversity where you hypothesize that they may have mutated faster.

Have you gotten a chance to test that prediction yet? No one in the scientific community

I think has measured the mutation rates. So let me back up here a second. I think I've got a diagram. Oh, I know what would be a good illustration of this so that the audience can see what's the explanatory task.

Why even talk about Africans versus non -Africans. The short answer is there's different amounts of genetic diversity in Africans versus non -Africans.

And if we look at a tree of the mitochondrial DNA data, we can see this visually at a glance.

So this is a 2016 paper where I brought in some generation time data. Rotate the view.

Here we go. Okay. Here is an example of a mitochondrial DNA based tree from I think 300 some, 300 to 400 people around the globe.

And you can see I'm calling this basically the base of the tree. And if that is the base of the tree, it's different from what the mainstream community would say.

You've got branches of a certain length, kind of right here and right here. So just to orient people, what

I'm basically arguing is that time moves from kind of the bullseye center outward. This point right here and goes outward.

And these branches, therefore, hopefully you can see visually, are shorter than the branches out here.

And these branches out here are almost exclusively sub -Saharan Africans or people of sub -Saharan African descent.

So some of the Makranis in Pakistan who descend from East Asian mercenaries and of course

African Americans you can find out here as well. They have longer branches. No one has actually measured the mutation rate among people in these branches or published it.

And so one of the predictions I made is because these branches are longer, we would expect to find a faster mutation rate among these people.

The way the evolutionary tree is oriented, I don't think I've actually seen a prediction along these lines in print, but you'd expect the same mutation rate in the

African and non -African branches. So this is actually a great scenario where you can compare the evolutionary predictions and creationist predictions side by side.

It is a literal prediction because no one has yet measured this mutation rate, mainstream community or myself.

So no, it has not yet been measured. It's still a prediction. I'm anxious to see what the evolutionists will put in print. There's already an implied mutation rate and how this turns out would be a fantastic test of these two hypotheses side by side.

All right. I know people are waiting so I'm going to end it with here. Dr. Jensen, thank you so much for being here and Andrew, Anthony and all the people at Striving for Eternity, thank you for arranging this.

I'm going to bow out and let other people come in. Thanks for coming by. Thank you, David.

Thank you. Good to see you, David. Good to see you. So we have someone else backstage. Dr. Dan Stern -Eistein.

I mispronounced it. Sorry about that. Hi. Can you hear me okay? We can hear you. Great. Hi, Dr.

Dan Stern -Cardinal. Hi. Thanks for doing the show and thanks for having me on.

I appreciate it. And Dr. Jensen, it's a pleasure to talk to you. Likewise. So what kind of doctor are you, just so we know?

I am an evolutionary biologist. My PhD is in genetics and microbiology and my specialty is viral evolution, which has made the last couple of years kind of an interesting time.

Dan has also contacted me on Facebook sometime back. We had an engagement and said, you know, come out and if you're ever out at Rutgers, we'll have a date.

I said, sure, but it has to be honest. Yes. Yeah. If you're ever off or still stands, I'm still right here in Central Jersey.

So if you're ever in the neighborhood, let me know. I'd love to chat. I actually did a lot of evangelism up at Rutgers and being from Jersey for 53 years.

There you go. Excellent. I'm sure we can, if you want, Dr. Svestrov here might be willing to do a debate if you'd be interested.

You know, I will. Let's talk about it at some point. I certainly won't say no. Anthony and I backstage so you guys can can talk.

All right. So I've read so hi, I've read.

It's nice to talk to you. Likewise, I've read replacing Darwin traced with great interest.

I was so pumped to get traced earlier this year. So I've read reviewed your work. I so I want to start actually just something just comment on something very brief that you said earlier about people criticizing creation science is not being science.

I actually disagree with that because like I think what you're doing, I think what you mentioned Dr. Behe a little while ago, like I think there are testable hypotheses here.

I want to say that up front that I don't think that it's appropriate to say like, oh, there's no science, but like I think there are testable hypotheses.

And my disagreement is that the hypotheses don't don't stand up. But I think there are testable hypotheses here that we can we can evaluate.

So I'm going to interject something there. Yeah, go ahead. A personal anecdote that I kind of had it was it was amusing as an undergraduate.

We had a philosophy professor come in from Madison. So I was at Parkside between walk in Kenosha or excuse me, but it's in Kenosha between walk in Chicago branch of the

Wisconsin system. So they had a Madison guy, you know, flagship campus come in talk about creation science give a lecture.

And that was the question where he was sort of chiding his fellow evolutionists saying now some of you would say creation is wrong because it's not science.

The other part of you would say creation is wrong because it is testable and it's been falsified and you can't have it both ways.

Right. His conclusion was it's not testable. He's coming at it from a philosophy perspective. So anyway,

I appreciate you saying that. I think it is. And I think one way I think traced is it gives a lot of opportunities for that.

So one thing that jumped out at me and traced was that there was only the briefest mention in a couple of places of Neanderthals.

Early in the book, there was one mentioned and then later on just kind of when you talked about post -flood and Babel, there was kind of a series of things you mentioned that would have been kind of in the immediate post -flood range and Neanderthals were one of those things.

And it surprised me that Neanderthals didn't play a large role in this work because we have, as I know you're familiar with, we have sequenced

Neanderthal DNA and not just like one or two samples, but we have quite a few samples now that could have been used to inform this analysis.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but my understanding of your position is that because this is archaic

DNA, it's been in the ground, it's questionable preservation, that the sequences are not reliable.

That's my understanding of your position with Neanderthal DNA, but correct me if I'm wrong on that. That's one aspect of it that I've been suspicious of for some time, that it may be degraded or there's something about it that seems unreliable, but there's probably more you want to say, so I'll let you say it.

Yeah, so the reason that I think Neanderthal DNA is so relevant to this is because they are highly divergent from all the

Homo sapiens sequences that we have. Homo sapiens form a nice neat clade, we're all really similar to each other, and then

Neanderthals form a separate clade over here. They're all more similar to each other than any of them are to us, and they're way more divergent.

They're divergent from us. So if they are descended from Noah's family, right, in the immediate post -flood era, then we need to account for that level of divergence, and even this three mutation per generation rate is not sufficient to account for all of that divergence from the rest of Homo sapiens.

So I think we can be super confident that these sequences are valid for a number of reasons.

One is that they form a nice neat clade by themselves that's separate from the Homo sapiens clade. We shouldn't expect that.

If they were degraded, they shouldn't be correlated with each other very well. They're inbred. We know that Neanderthals are highly inbred.

We know that because they have lots of homozygosity. If they're degraded, then the two sets of chromosomes in that diploid set, they should not be correlated with each other.

We would see less homozygosity rather than more. And then the third thing is that we can actually detect specific types of degradation.

The most frequent type of DNA spontaneous breakdown is cytosine deamination to uracil.

And when we look at Neanderthal sequences, we can see that they're enriched in uracil. It's a quantifiable amount of uracil that shouldn't be there because it's

DNA, not RNA. So we know that all those uracils should be cytosines. We know that cytosine is way less stable than all the other bases.

So if we can quantify and correct for the errors in cytosine, the rest of the genome is perfectly reliable.

We can be confident in that. So we have perfectly good reasons to conclude that these Neanderthal sequences are valid.

But that then breaks the 6 ,000 year time frame for the convergence of these sequences, or 4 ,500 year time frame for the convergence of these sequences because they're so highly divergent.

So I would love to hear your response to that. Yeah. I'm going to do a share screen. Maybe this can illustrate what you're talking about.

And I'll also say, as I'm putting the screen up for you, there are, you know, with the two of you, there may be a lot of things that are going to go over our heads.

So if you could, there you're like also the answer. Could you help us to understand what some of this argument is?

Yes. That was what I was going to try to illustrate here first. So what is the objection? And this is what I was going to try to show just because there's a nice color graph

I have here. And Dan has made this point, and Joel Duff has made this point, and I think

Herman Mays has alluded to it as well. So I think I can illustrate it this way. Essentially the argument is, we've got this graph, we've got the creationist prediction, this is looking at the whole,

I'm using mitochondrial DNA, but I think we can make the same type of argument. Mitochondrial DNA with bichromosome, it's the same sort of same song, second verse, first verse, and I have this graph handy in color, and I think it'll make the point, and you can agree or disagree with me.

So I've been arguing, this is mitochondrial DNA, but I've got similar graphs for bichromosome.

This distance equals rate times time, differences equals rate times time. If you've got the rate of change, and you multiply it by 6 ,000 years, you get a certain number of predictions.

The same thing for evolution, you get a higher number of predictions, and the creationist predictions captures the actual.

And how Neanderthal would change all this, it would make the green bar go up much higher. Would that be an appropriate illustration of what you're saying?

So it would remove it, so my prediction then would be an underprediction of the actual differences.

It wouldn't be 38 to 40, it would be... The observations are that the populations are more divergent than you can account for given the mutation rate and the time you're using.

So without them, you've got these black bars that seem to capture the green one, that the black bars, or excuse me, this range right here for the red is an overprediction, but if this green bar goes up because you have a

DNA sequence that's very different, like the published Neanderthal sequences, now you've changed the conclusions.

Now it's the creation model that doesn't match it, it's the evolutionary model that does capture it. That would be a fair summary of the main objection that you're advancing here, yes?

I'll say yes, but I also don't exactly agree with that red bar because you can't use a molecular clock that's that strict, but that's a separate objection.

Sure. That's a separate point, but that's essentially the here's how it contradicts creation line of reasoning.

Yeah. And Joel Duff has tried to make a similar point. If I had time, we could do screenshots from his, where he says branches early on the family tree and these sorts of things.

Are you familiar with this paper? Yes. Yes, I am.

Assume I'm familiar, I have a folder of all your work, and it's highlighted and annotated. So then you're familiar with,

I'm trying to find this specific tree.

Here we go. So let's see if I can zoom in.

This is sort of the same, another version of that tree we just looked at. This is mitochondrial DNA again, just because these are the illustrations

I have handy. Can I actually just pause for a second to ask a question about this tree?

So this is, I just want to make sure I'm because this one isn't labeled like some of the other ones of yours that there's the bigger one that has like the green arrows and correct me if I'm wrong with those kind of central nodes there in the middle those, because this is a mitochondrial tree, those represent

Noah's son's wives. Is that the implication? Yeah. Okay, so question about this tree, what just in general on a phylogenetic tree like this, what does a line connecting two nodes represent?

You have two nodes connected by a line. It technically would represent the DNA differences between two people.

I think the point you're trying to get at is that there would be some sort of implied ancestral relationship between these three nodes.

If you root the tree, yes. Yeah, which I put in one of the footnotes that the identity of these ladies is not clear from scripture.

They could have been sisters, they could have been ancestrally related back to Eve in some way, and so and I also discussed some of the details of how many mutations occurred pre -flood because you have

I think on the tree it's about three or four on these specific lines. It's a little tangential to what we're talking about with the

Neanderthals, but you're converting the unrooted tree to a rooted tree incorrectly which is kind of it's tangential to what we're talking about, but it is relevant to the broader picture.

That is an objection though. You would need to explain instead of having a free pot shot. Just saying.

It's how phylogenetics works. When you root it, you have to have those lines get converted into ancestor -descendant relationships.

So the fact that they're connected in kind of daisy chains like this, it's either going to get converted into a situation where you have a kind of grandparent -parent -grandchild or if it's in between it's going to be some kind of parent -offspring or parent -descendant relationship.

It's not going to be three coexisting individuals. Again, it's a small point that's not related to the

Neanderthal thing, but it is relevant. I agree with it, and that's my point is that there could have been some wonky things pre -flood that I discuss in the literature.

Oh, okay. Okay. That they could still be contemporary in time because the mutation rates pre -flood or the generation times pre -flood where you have in Genesis 5 for example in the male line, you have ten generations listed, but because the men live so long, you've got

Adam, you've got another guy, and you've got Noah, and you can have that sort of genealogical overlap where only three generations pass in some lines where you can have ten generations in others and that can lead to these sorts of relationships that we see in the tree.

I don't think that's exactly relevant to what I'm asking, but that's okay. I do want to not get off topic with the

Neanderthal question that's specifically about traced, but that does exactly address the problem with rooting the unrooted tree.

I'm saying it does imply like you're saying, ancestral -descendant relationships but there's biblical data that's relevant to it that so I'm aware of that implication.

It's not a contradiction. It's in line with what we see about generational overlap in Genesis 5.

Okay, are you familiar with this diagram? Yeah. How do you think

I would explain these? Just to clarify for people, this is similar to this other tree over here.

It's mitochondrial DNA -based tree. It's only based on 53 men. The three nodes you can hard to see way back here and then these long branches are representing

Denisovans, Neanderthals, so you can see visually at a glance that these really different sequences.

So how do you think this diagram, what does this diagram imply about the origin and mutation rates in these sequences given my model?

So again, my understanding of your position with Neanderthals is that the sequences are not actually reliable so this long branch is more of an artifact than anything else, but if we take it at face value, which

I think we should, that would imply that those branches have faster mutation rates. Yes, which is something

I've discussed. ...into the same amount of time but the problem, slight problem with what

I just said is that I'm using the phrase mutation rate when the more appropriate term would be substitution rate because that's really what we're dealing with with mutation accumulation.

It's not the per generation rate that matters, it's what mutations stick around in the population that matter.

You've advanced that argument before and it's circular. It's absolutely not circular. It's the evolutionary model applied to the creation one.

How do we know that it has to be the substitution rate? That's the question and the answer should be testable predictions and the fact that my predictions are working is the counter argument.

So I've actually tested your predictions directly against some real world mitochondrial data.

So for example you can look at populations for which we know the exact divergence time, so things like island colonizations, that things that are occurring within documented human history, things where we're not going outside the young earth timeline, so it's things that we should all be able to agree on.

And we can take your model, right, and say okay this many mutations per generation this much time and then say okay 20 years per generation, 30 years, you can get a range and your model consistently overestimates how many mutations we expect to find differing between the groups in question.

An example, this would be like the settlement of, I think it was the Canary Islands, was one that I looked at specifically. And it wasn't like off by a little bit, it was off by like on the low end a factor of 5 and on the high end a factor of like 12 or 15 or something.

So it is, the mutation versus substitution rate thing is relevant because if you're using just the simple pedigree based mutation rates, the assumption that you're building into your work by just doing the rate times time thing is you're assuming that every mutation that occurs within a generation is ultimately fixed within that population and that's selection occurs, drift occurs, stuff, people don't have kids, for a

Y chromosome in mitochondrial day, people might have all boys or all girls, right? So it's not a reasonable assumption to think you can use such a strict molecular clock that you can take that one generation rate and extrapolate it back.

And we have direct data testing that proposition showing that it's valid. You actually cite two papers that do that in TRACE.

You say it's low quality data because the coverage is only 10 to 15 times but those two papers, in addition to many others, show exactly the problem here.

I think you brought up about three different points that I think are worth discussing but it'd be helpful for our audience if we take them one by one.

The substitution rate is one, the dating of the mitochondrial with historical archaeology, there may be a third one.

I think it'd be easier for our discussion if we take one at a time for the sake of the audience instead of rapid fire.

Let's go back up to ... Let's return to those since we're going afield now from the

Neanderthal sequences. We are. Yeah, I really love to hear about Neanderthals. So back to my question to you.

How do you think, in my model, these long branches would be explicable especially given where they come off on the tree?

It would have to be faster mutation rates, I would think. Yes. Because they come off the African branch which

I've already predicted is going to be a faster mutation rate. If these sequences are reliable it looks like a hyper fast mutation rate and would in fact then not be a contradiction to the tree.

Joel Duff doesn't understand this point. He's completely reoriented the tree and doesn't seem to follow the basics of the model

I've advanced. Can I ask something about that hyper mutation rate though?

Yeah. Neanderthals are, if you take the sequences as valid,

Neanderthals are highly inbred. So they can't be hyper mutating if they're highly inbred.

We would see more heterozygosity if they were hyper mutating. What we actually see is an abundance of homozygosity.

Okay. It may not be a valid explanation. I just wanted to point out that there was, in some of the criticisms of Neanderthal sequences, there's an inherent circularity or a misunderstanding of the model.

So what I've been saying for a while then, because this is a paper from 2015, either it seems they're part of a hyper mutating sequence, which wouldn't apply to the calculations

I've been doing, or the DNA is somehow degraded. Now, that's 2015. Let's fast forward now to 2019.

Are you familiar with this paper? You're familiar with that paper?

Okay. Yes, I am. And how did I test Neanderthal sequences since the title of the paper is

Testing the Predictions? How did I test the validity or the relevance of Neanderthal Y -chromosome sequences to what

I was doing here? What was my main argument? I don't recall this specific argument in this paper, but I would love it if you would refresh my memory.

I wanted to hear that from you, because it's the foundation of my current model of Neanderthals, and your unfamiliarity with it is significant.

So I'll let you know what I did here. I'm bringing it up because I think Herman Mays and you and Joel Duff all are advancing the same talking points.

Joel Duff even saying things that somehow I'm not familiar with the

Neanderthal sequence, and all three of you seem to have somehow missed this critical paper that directly tests the

Neanderthal sequence. So here's how it goes. I'm glad you came on because it's helpful for our audience to see exactly how this debate goes down.

One of the things I put in print is that so many disagree with creation science because they don't actually know what we say, and I like to have live illustrations of this.

Can I ask a brief question, just very briefly, just to make sure we're on the same page.

Are you treating the Neanderthal sequences for the purpose of trace? Are you treating the Neanderthal sequences as valid sequences, or are they unreliable in some way?

For trace, I'm following the logic that I advanced in this paper. So I'll derive it for you now.

Let me actually go back to the top here. Oh, is this using the branching, the number of branches and correlating the population?

Yeah, that's not how phylogenetic, I'm sorry. I have to say that's not, you can't derive population size from phylogeny like that.

Thank you. You put this in your video, I encourage everyone to watch your video because it is one of the greatest gifts to creation science.

You literally quote a textbook to show that I can't use this method when the science is staring you in the face.

It's a complete reversal of 40 years of creation. Let me finish what I'm saying. 40 years of creation science.

So I'll have the video, we'll have all these quotes. Creationists have been criticized for citing authority, relying on the written word, and Dan's first argument against me is that it disagrees with the written word instead of doing experiments.

So you've got the data literally staring you in the face, and instead of engaging the data, well it can't possibly be right.

I'm sorry, Dr. Jensen, with respect, Dr. Jensen, I'm asking what is, I think, a pretty straightforward question here of whether, because I've read from you that archaic

DNA is not reliable sequences. So I'm asking what I think is a pretty straightforward question here of whether you think, for the purposes of why chromosome ancestry,

Neanderthal sequences are reliable or whether they're unreliable. Yes, and I'm giving you an answer that you don't seem to be familiar with because you don't seem to be familiar with this paper, nor does

Joel Duff, nor does Herman Mays, and it is fundamental to the crux of the arguments in this book. It is a direct refutation of most of your arguments.

It is a glaring omission from your criticisms, and it is an illustration of the fundamentally art -advancing scientific nature of what

I'm doing. So I'll give you the answer now. So the logic goes like this.

The companion paper to this was the one where you talk about father -son mutation rates, which you said, we can probably hit a couple boards with one stone here.

Just to clarify for the audience, when Dan says substitution rates versus mutation rates, mutation rates, and some of this is

I think your virology background, where it becomes even more relevant, which came up during our Facebook discussions. For our purposes here, the question is, let's say we measure a mutation rate between fathers and sons, and I'm saying the measured rate is three mutations per generation.

How do we know that rate has been consistent throughout human history? How do you know that all those mutations will last?

Can you treat it like this is going on every generation, and somehow every generation, the amount of mutations is growing, and that basically new branches are laid down, because that's effectively what

I'm saying. With three mutations, you're basically laying down new branches in the family tree every generation. That's essentially the implication of what

I'm claiming, if that's the mutation rate. It is what I'm claiming. You can disagree with what

I'm claiming. Let me stop. I'm saying this is what my model predicts. You can disagree with it, but I'm saying,

I'm articulating, here's where my model is going, and here's how I'm going to test the predictions of it.

That's the fundamental focus of this paper. It's critical to what I'm advancing. The fundamental misunderstanding and all the criticisms, a great gift, though, because there's a critical scientific element of what

I'm doing here. I'm saying, if that's true, there's actually a guy on Josh Tuamidas' page, it finally clicked for him.

I had to laugh at this. He's like, if Jensen's model is true, we should be laying down branches every single generation, and that is at the heart of this paper and one of the strongest arguments for the validity of what

I'm doing. Here's how it goes. I realize it disagrees with how the methods are typically done in textbooks, but science is supposed to be finding chinks in the established armor and then testing these new ideas, which is what this is exactly doing.

How do we know this is true? Let me, again, derive how I'm getting to this point. We've got my claim from the examination of the published literature that the mutation rate is three mutations per generation, and I'm treating the mutation rate as a substitution rate.

Thank you. That's what I'm doing. I was right about that.

Yes, this disagrees with the evolutionary methods where you don't do that, and I'm questioning that, and so how would you go about establishing which of the two positions is correct, which of the two methodologies is correct?

You'd find an independent data set in which the two models

No, you test against Hold on, let me just One of the things that rules with our show is we don't really allow the interrupting, and I've kind of let go a little bit, but Dr.

Dan, you've been doing it a bit, he hasn't done it to you, so I just got to call foul on you, I'm sorry, but let him finish, and then we try to give enough time for back and forth with everyone's different views.

Appreciate it, thank you. Okay. Let me try to then lay out what I'm trying to articulate as the differences between the two.

So you've got, typically in the creation evolution debate, you talk about one side holds a certain view of ancestry, one holds another view of ancestry.

One side holds to a certain time scale, another side holds to another time scale, and we try to compare those. In this case, now we're talking about the differences extending to the realm of methodology.

So we're testing a whole bunch of things here in what I'm about to say, and the way I went about, in this paper, testing,

Joel Duff here says the model isn't validated in the real world, appears Joel Duff hasn't read this paper either. So let me explain exactly what

I did for those who haven't read it, which seems to be my critics. That's, anyway. We have published independent, so Joel Duff says he's quite familiar, just wait for the videos,

I'm glad you did them, because you made some pretty egregious errors that are a great gift, again, because I've been saying that how do we know when creation science has matured?

When the critics start using against creation science the arguments they used creationists have been using against evolution, when the roles are reversed, and that's what we're seeing here.

Okay, so the independent data set, we know from archaeology and historical records, the history of human population growth.

It's basically a hockey stick shape. From a thousand, and I go through in this paper in great detail, where creationists and evolutionists agree on this, because if you go back far enough, can you test the human history of population growth by saying here's how the history of human population growth looked 10 ,000 years ago, 15 ,000 years ago?

No, because that's already a circular argument. You have to find a place where the creationists and evolutionists agree, and we agree from a thousand

BC onward, the last 3 ,000 years of human history have a hockey stick shape, and the creationists and evolutionists would agree this is what it looks like.

So which methodology accurately recapitulates the hockey stick shape of human population growth?

That's what this paper does. It tests a number of things. It tests different positions on the

Y -chromosome tree. I think Noah might be up here. I think so within the Young Earth Creation Model, Noah might be up here. Noah might be up here.

Noah might be down here. Noah might be, if we orient the tree in a manner that's consistent with mainstream science, that's what this evolutionary root is in this figure.

So here's an experimental attempt to say, which is the place that best matches the data?

Long story short, this is how creation science is so different from where it was 40 years ago.

These are positive procreation arguments that are being advanced. They're also in Appendix A of, actually,

Appendix B of this book. So something that closely approximates where I landed on for the Noah position in TRACED is this right here.

The blue lines represent, from the Y -chromosome tree within the Young Earth Creation Model, the recapitulation of human population growth.

Black represents what we know from archaeology and history, and there's about a 95 % match. So here's the question for any critic.

Why does this methodology recapitulate known history so well? If the methods are wrong, the time scale is wrong, why can

I recapitulate human history so well? This makes predictions about the rate at which we should find new branches that are already working since this paper came out.

There's all sorts of things that flow from this. Now, here's where we're getting to Neanderthals. I tested that as well, using the evolutionary tree orientation that Joel Duff argued.

So I don't think Joel Duff seems to be familiar with this paper because he put the tree wrong. Here's the recapitulation of human population growth based on the

Neanderthal sequence. It's about a 14 % match. So what is my treatment of Neanderthal DNA in the book

TRACED? It cites this paper and says we have an experimental independent rejection of the reliability of the sequence.

Whatever is going on, it is a very poor recapitulation of human population growth history and when you leave it out, it works like crazy.

This has led to further predictions. I have explicit predictions in the book about the rate at which you'll find new branches. It's the basis for my research going forward.

This is the thrust of TRACED. There's hardly any anti -evolution in it because it's one long positive argument after another and my treatment of Neanderthal DNA is based on this paper that no one has touched in the video criticisms.

That's the essence of what's going on here. Experimental rejection of the reliability of it.

Hey, Dr. Dan, we're getting some audio noise from you. I don't know if you can mute when you're not.

Oh, I'm sorry. No worries. It just sounds like we're picking up movement. Sorry. Go ahead.

I think he was done. It's next to me now? Back to you. Oh, okay. Sorry. Yeah. Sorry. I was clicking something.

My apologies. I hear you and I get it with the branches and the number of branches and the historical record.

That's not relevant to the mutation substitution rate question. It's based on it.

The question is, if all that I'm doing is wrong, why do I get this 95 % match? Let Dan finish.

I'm sorry. Go ahead. The reason it's not relevant is because the way to the question we have, the disagreement we're having is, do you use a strict per generation molecular clock of the mutation rate to extrapolate backwards in time to predict what your mutation accumulation should be?

Or do you use a substitution rate that takes into account the loss of diversity over generations, where a mutation occurs and it doesn't persist indefinitely in that population.

It will get lost over time in most cases. Obviously, some mutations are fixed in the population and mutations accumulate.

The way to test this is to take events where we have a well -documented confirmed divergence date between two populations.

We have population A. We have population B. We know when they diverge from each other and we can measure the level of divergence in their genetics.

We can then say, okay, you have your rate. Your math is just how many generations, what's the per generation rate.

We can see if that matches up. We have the evolutionary model, which involves a curve because you lose whatever fraction of mutations over time and the substitution rate in terms of the number of mutations that occur is much lower compared to the mutation rate.

Mutation rate is mutations that occur. Substitution rate. I know you know this. This is for everybody watching.

Substitution rate is mutations that reach fixation in the population. It's the rate at which differences accumulate between two divergent populations.

That's what we're talking about here. We can actually test this against historical events, events that you and I don't disagree on on the time frame.

The one that I've actually done math on this, you can do this for a bunch of things. Do it for Iceland, which was a thousand years ago.

You could do it for Vanuatu, which was three something thousand years ago. The one I've actually done the calculations on is for the

Canary Islands, which were settled 22 to 2400 years ago. This is well documented.

There's a very narrow window where the Canary Islands were first settled. We know from where they were settled.

We know what the sister population is. What we can do is sequence. I've done this for mitochondrial

DNAs because we have all the mitochondrial sequences here for their various groups. We can just look at the mutations and do the calculations and make the predictions and see which model actually matches what we see.

I've done this math. I've had trouble screen sharing Excel before, but I'm going to try.

If that's okay, Andrew, if you don't mind, I'm going to try to share an Excel spreadsheet. I don't know if it's going to work.

I don't know why Excel gives me issues sometimes. That's fair. Dr. Jensen, if you wouldn't mind.

Oh, no. I can do it. There we go. Let's see. I don't know why it's doing that.

I don't know why it's not working. Let me do my stop sharing and maybe it'll... Oh, maybe that was it.

Okay, let's see. Let me try again. Here, let's see.

Yeah, I don't think it's working for me. I don't know why Excel doesn't like StreamYard for some reason.

It's not... All right. Well, that's okay. I'll just tell you the numbers. Andrew, thanks for trying.

I appreciate it. If we look at... Dr. Jensen, in your papers on the mitochondrial mutation rates, you have ranges for generation times.

You have ranges for mutations per generation. I'm using the numbers from those papers. I think, specifically, the 2015 one, the whole generation mitochondrial mutation rate matches

D loop rate. That one, I think, is where I'm getting these numbers from. Given the time frame between these two groups, 22 to 2 ,400 years, you could draw that out to 3 ,000 if you want to be generous to account for more potential mutations in there.

The range of mutations that we would expect based on just a strict per generation molecular clock is between 23 and 120.

That's the level of divergence you would expect between those two populations. We've sequenced the mitochondrial

DNA for those populations. They're each just one haplogroup. They're sister groups, so it's really nice and easy to do that.

The actual number of differences that we find in those two groups, depending on how you measure it, is between 2 and 4.

It's a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4. That's exactly in line with evolutionary predictions.

It is between 5 and 60 times lower than the prediction you get using your strict per generation rate molecular clock, which seems to me like a fairly good reason to reject that model as a way to calculate mitochondrial time to most recent common ancestry.

I wonder if you recognize the assumptions that are built into that analysis. What would those assumptions be?

I'll see if I can draw it out Socratically. How many times have the Americas been settled? How many times have the

Americas been settled? I'm not up on the paleontology there, but I think it's two, maybe more.

What is the dominant genetic lineage in the Y chromosome? I haven't memorized the

Y chromosome lineages, but I would love to hear your response to the divergence between your predictions and the observations for the

Canary Islands lineage. The dominant lineage in the Americas is European and African in origin, not indigenous in the

Y chromosome. Why is this relevant to the Canary Islands?

Because the assumption built into your analysis is that the lineage you're looking at is the original one.

When we know from human history that human history is constantly changing, people are constantly replacing one another.

Migrations are the rule. That's the inherent weakness of doing that sort of thing is there's the built -in assumption that that lineage was the original lineage and not a late migrant in.

There really is no way to test that. It's an assumption that's made. It actually is because in the

Canary Islands... I apologize I didn't mean to interrupt. No, go ahead. It actually is because the Canary Islands are very unique in that you needed seafaring to get there.

They're sufficiently far off of the coast of North Africa that you need to be reasonably good at sailing to get there.

But the Canary Islands then became isolated. They stopped communicating with the mainland about 2 ,000 years ago.

It was a settlement event and then they just stopped. There's robust historical record for this so that when

European explorers stumbled upon the Canary Islands much later, we know exactly now you're up into the 1500s.

So we have an extremely robust record of who was there, when they got there, and how much or little contact they had with anybody else.

And my point is you can cite all that and still you've got examples from around the globe of population replacements.

Even today, the mitochondrial lineages in the Canary Islands are quite diverse. That's the built -in assumption of saying we're going to say this sequence was the original.

It wasn't a late migrant. And by assuming this was the original, now we can date it. Sure, if you make all those assumptions, that's free land.

But that's the inherent uncertainty built into that. Now, I want to bring up again the main counter arguments to it.

So my point is there's some uncertainty. Maybe you're right. But if you're right, I'm trying to share my screen again, why are all these lines of evidence working so well for Young Earth Creation Science?

Why am I capturing global human history, 95 % of it, with all this sort of analysis?

Why can I see known historical events within the Y chromosome DNA? You had switched subjects there from Y chromosome back to mitochondrial

DNA. That's to me how I would add to the mitochondrial DNA. I'd say, number one, there's this built -in uncertainty.

How do we know that this haplogroup U6 or whatever it is that they're saying is the original? So it's linked to North Africa, but there's a built -in assumption of saying this was the original one.

There's almost a little bit of circularity. Anyway, it's a point that's open for discussion. May I address it, though?

Well, I guess I'm saying there is an inherent uncertainty because we know from recent history, that's just a fact of history that population replacements occur, and they can go under the radar.

So how do you know it didn't occur? That's the question that's a little bit more difficult to answer. And then my bigger counter -argument is why do other implications that flow from my model see such dramatic success and continue to see dramatic success?

I didn't have a position for NOAA in the Y chromosome tree when I published these papers.

That came out later when I was able to work through human history, line it all up, and align multiple endpoints of biblical data and Y chromosome data.

Why can I predict how deeply you have to look, where you have to look in the world for certain lineages?

I think of an analogy here to what Neil Shubin did in his book, Your Inner Fish. Discovered Tiktaalik, a highly cited transitional form, they'd say.

He would say, the power of the evolutionary model is knowing where to look exactly to find this type of fossil.

I would argue, I mean, I'm doing it. My model, with the Y chromosome now, tells me exactly where to go looking in the world for deeper lineages.

It's already working. I can give you examples of this. Lineages are showing up where they should exactly on the tree where they should in a manner that matches this population growth curve.

So it's not just that this particular study showed 95 % alignment to the history of population growth.

It's that there's a mathematical relationship here. If I sample this many men, I should see this many branches in the recent past, this many branches in the ancient past.

If I want to go looking for more branches in the ancient past, I have to sample this many men. This is just basic math that I'm using going forward.

So that's my main response to the Canary Islands example is I think there's an inherent uncertainty in it.

I'm sure there's some counter -arguments. The way forward is, you do experiments, which is what I've been doing for the past several years and they keep working.

And that to me is my main challenge to my evolutionary colleagues is, please explain why these predictions keep getting fulfilled if what

I'm doing is fundamentally wrong. Go ahead. I use the

Canary Islands as an example because it's a well -documented historical event because the only settlement post the original settlement was

Europeans in the 1500s. So we can easily tell those lineages apart. I'll leave that to the side because it's not just that one data point we can use.

We can test this model against lots of similar instances within a comparable time frame.

So you've got Iceland, you've got Madagascar, Vanuatu, several others.

Now you can start within a Young Earth time frame and then you could go beyond a Young Earth time frame and say, okay, if Europe was actually settled 45 -ish thousand years ago, here's what we expect to see.

If Japan was actually settled whatever 30 -something, or maybe,

I always forget which is which, but one of them was 30 -something, one of them was 40 -something thousand years ago. If those numbers are true, we can say, okay, here's the level of divergence we expect to see.

So again, we're making predictions, right? Here's the level of divergence we expect to see given the substitution rate model and that's exactly what we end up finding.

So it's not just one instance where we're relying on a historical record that you may disagree with.

It's multiple instances where we're having historical records, archaeological data, and we're seeing that that's exactly in line with the genetic data.

So that's my answer to why does this model work? The creation model isn't really working.

It's when we make these predictions it lines up with the substitution rates that get you a mitochondrial most recent common ancestor in the neighborhood of 1 to 200 ,000 years ago, and a

Y chromosome most recent common ancestor in the 2 to 300 ,000 year ago range. I appreciate all that and happy to grant it for sake of argument, you still haven't answered the basic question.

You're denying that there's a match that's staring you in the face. That is a quantifiable 95 % match where I've employed my methods, my assumptions and it works and it predicts things in the future.

You can't just say it doesn't exist. It's right here. It's in the paper. And it's continued to work.

It's in the appendix for TRACED. It's the basis of research going forward. We can point to other examples where it's and again, this is what kind of made me chuckle in the

Peaceful Science Forum. It finally clicked for one of the critics saying if this is true, you should see branches appearing constantly and I'm like yes, that was the point of this paper from 2019 and we've seen it continue to work.

So that's my main rejoinder. We can go into these specifics for these historical events and such my main argument counter would still be there's this inherent assumption about the continuity of settlings and the dynamism of history but the bigger point is we've got data right here as one example where there's a tremendous match and it continues to work so how can that possibly be true if what

I'm doing is deeply flawed? So the reason that it continued, that in your presentation it continues to work is actually

I think partially answered by the first thing you said about the dynamism of history and how populations move around and everything and there's another really good example of this directly from trace that I think is relevant to this question

Are you familiar with the Villa Bruna specimen from Northern Italy? Stone Age remains?

This is one of these ancient DNA samples I think you discussed in your video correct? I forget if I brought this one up.

I think I brought this one up. I think I brought this one up. So this is the R1B specimen from Northern Italy.

It's a Stone Age burial site which conventionally dated to about 14 ,000 years ago.

In your model Stone Age specimen would be immediate post flood if I understand correctly so it would be like between 4 ,000 -4 ,500 years ago.

And also thank you. I appreciate that you watched the review. Appreciate it. So thank you for that. So this specimen well documented

Stone Age specimen. It's actually in an area and a find with other specimens like it was a burial site that was used for a really long time.

So we've got Stone Age specimen and more recent specimens there. And this is an R1B specimen in Northern Europe that entraced correct me if I'm wrong but R1B entered

I should say Northern Italy not Northern Europe but it entered Western Europe between year 700 and 1400 somewhere in the

Middle Ages. Is that correct? R1B entering Europe from the Middle Ages like the steps. Far beyond where I'd put the

Stone Age. Yes. Right. So R1B enters Europe in the Middle Ages but we have a Stone Age specimen which even according to your timeline is like 4 ,000 years ago that has

R1B in Northern Italy that specimen didn't get mentioned in the book.

It's pretty well like it's really well documented. It's a famous thing. It's even got its own Wikipedia page. So how do we reconcile those two things?

The same way I did with this. We experimentally test it and that's you'd get the same result as I was just showing here.

So I think this again we return to it doesn't seem like any of the critics are familiar with what's going on in this paper.

We can experimentally test whether or not that's reliable or useful. It does not produce population growth curves that are superior to population growth curves based on the

DNA from the living on the Young Earth timescale. It's this tremendous match where I say the data itself indicate that when you just use living

DNA and the 45 -year timescale you can recapitulate large swaths of history to a high degree of accuracy and it makes predictions for the future.

This is what I'm using to try to find my model predicts there's going to be a whole bunch more ancient lineages in this family tree and if that's true

I should go looking for them and finding them. That's what the projects are going forward and I'm using exactly this math to do it.

That's the basis the fundamental basis for the science behind TRACED is which of these models does the data better support?

I'm going with the one that's working and that keeps working. I do want to note here that you just made a what is a circular argument here because what you said is that it does not match this specimen being

R1b at that time period. It does not match population growth curves on a 4 ,500 year timescale.

That's exactly what I'm saying. It doesn't match a 4 ,500 year timescale which is the reason

I think to question the 4 ,500 year timescale not the validity of the sample which is why the question

I kind of started this with was are those DNA samples valid and it seems like you're saying the answer is no not because there's technical reasons or whatever with the dating of the specimen or the sequence of the specimen but it's because it contradicts the growth model you've constructed based on 4 ,500 year history therefore they must necessarily be invalid and that seems like a circular argument to me.

Then I haven't communicated it clearly. What I'm saying is I guess I skipped over a few steps here is I was taking the argument you were making and then applying it within this framework.

If I understand your argument correctly I'm claiming this particular branch so R1B for those watching is just the name of a particular branch in the

Y chromosome tree common in Western Europe and I'm saying it arrived in Western Europe from Central Asia and the

Middle Ages which so okay that's the model I'm articulating in the book based on the

DNA of the living so then we've got this DNA sample from the deceased what's considered

Stone Age so if we analyze it within a Young Earth framework Stone Age would be shortly post -flood, it would be thousands of years prior to what

I'm arguing for R1B coming to Europe. Now the inherent question again in all this analysis is, is that R1B sample reliable?

And I'm saying that's a hypothesis we can test basically if I say okay let's reorient the tree, let's incorporate this early

R1B sample, we've got the date then from archaeology it puts it at 4 ,000 years so you basically have to slam the tree together this is how it would change the orientation of the tree in the

Young Earth model, it would create a new model within Young Earth, it would imply a whole bunch of mutation early on post -flood and then just a few mutations later, you can create a new

Young Earth model and then draw a human population growth curve from it and you would get a population growth curve that looks something like this and I can experimentally reject that as inferior to a population growth model that excludes

R1B from this ancient sample that's drawn based on the living, it's basically a form of hypothesis testing, it's same song second verse with the

Neanderthal these ancient DNA sequences produce population growth curves that are inferior to those based on the

DNA of the living Okay so let me I'm going to pop in real quick just it is the bottom of the air, we have gone a little bit long

I do, I will want to ask for both of you and even Dr.

Joel who's been commenting back you know, Joel Duff if you guys would be open in having a longer discussion you know, and we could set that up here if interested but I want to give you guys a couple of minutes more

I have one quick thing to say I think and then I'll I know we do have a few questions that came in throughout and we wanted to try to get to those as well but I want to be respectful of each of your times,

I know that Dan you've been sitting backstage for quite a while and Nathaniel you've gone over what we agreed to so I want to be respectful of that so I want to just give a couple more minutes, so if you have one more question

I'll let you ask that and then we'll try to wrap that up, okay? So I'll be real quick we could talk for hours and hours and hours about this because it's just super fun but I'll be real quick because I think

I think what you just did was what you just said was the most informative part of this whole conversation and it was this, what you said was we have a model and we have this specimen and if you take that specimen as valid right, if you take that specimen as valid you have to rework your model so we should not consider that specimen valid and you said that's a form of hypothesis testing but I think you have the hypothesis test backwards you've just misrepresented the model go ahead though I'm just going based on what you just said you misrepresented what

I said well please correct me then because it sounded like, let me just say it sounded like what you were saying is you have your model of population growth and this sample does not fit within that model of population growth therefore we get rid of the sample no, what

I'm saying is we have an independent data set by which we test models and that is the history of human population growth from archaeology and historical records from 1000

BC onward that's the independent data set, independent of genetics that young earth creationists and evolutionists agree on we test various models against that data set to see how well they match and I'm saying if you include

Neanderthals if you include that R1B sample from Italy, from ancient times, stone age times you get a population growth curve that doesn't match the test data set when you do just the living move my hand here, sorry, mirror image it gets a 95 % match so it's the independent data set that is the test of these hypotheses, not whether or not it fits my model,

I'm saying you can create multiple young earth creation models and young earthers have, and I've been encouraging them to do that go do it, that's science create a whole bunch of models and then find an independent data set to test it against so that you know whether or not you're on the right track that's what

I've been trying to do right, so it's a population growth model, not a nucleotide substitution model that's underlying these rates, is that a correct what do you mean?

so you're basing the you're looking at the rates of change genomically, right but you're calibrating it against a population growth model, rather than a nucleotide substitution model

I'm saying we have this independent data set that if my model and it's consequent methodology is true should match there's an inherent time scale tree orientation, there's a whole bunch of elements of this model, and I'm saying the way you independently test that without making it circular, is this archaeology and historical records based population growth curve, that's the basis for why

I'm going certain directions not whether or not it agrees with 4500 years whatever, it's this is the data set that we all agree on, and how we test models against it.

But we don't all agree on that data set, because it's that same data set that's used to inform like the dating of the settlements of the

Canary Islands and other samples that we use to derive a nucleotide substitution model that's vastly different from the mutation rate that you use.

So we don't all agree on that model that model is up for dispute do you know the source of my population growth data?

I'm not specifically familiar with the source of your population growth model but we like we're not agreeing on archaeology do you even know what source

I'm citing for the independent data set? I don't know specifically what source you're citing but you're disputing what

I'm citing for things like settlement events colonization events, so obviously we don't all agree on population placements and archaeology, we don't agree on those things.

You're changing the subject this is a, this is just this is debate 101, do you know the basis for what

I'm saying? I cite the source, you don't seem to be familiar with this paper. I've read your papers I haven't checked all of your sources, that takes a long time.

It's based on a 1975 analysis, pre -genetics, based on historical records, archaeology, here's the estimate of human population growth curve that's the data set

I'm testing this against and that, and what I'm saying is similar data sets that we can calibrate our nucleotide substitution model against, you're saying are not valid for various reasons.

Some of those reasons you, yeah, migrations happen it gets, right, R1b appears where we don't expect it to be at a time we don't expect it to be

I'm saying you're making a similar I'm sorry to interrupt, but you're getting, you're confusing multiple elements of this and not separating out the independent elements of it

I would very much disagree, but anyway, my final point I see Andrew in here, so my final point my final point is that these models have been directly tested with known historical events when you directly test them, the nucleotide substitution model that gets you a most recent common ancestor in the hundreds of thousands of years is validated and the strict per generation molecular clock model that treats mutation rate as substitution rate is directly contradicted by directly observable genetic data in the present, that's, and that's where I'll end it, and I would love to continue this conversation at some point thank you for all the time

I appreciate that, and I think it's a good way to end it, where you've avoided my main point, and it's fitting for what we've done so,

Dr. Danly I put my contact info up there for you, send me an email info at strivingforeternity .org

and I'll leave that up so you can get that down yeah, if you guys are both interested we could do more but I'm going to put you backstage you can still read the screen wanted to go through,

I should bring Anthony back in he loves when we go over the two hour mark, just so you realize our audience has dubbed that as Anthony time,

I should have trademarked it yeah, because what happened so there was a period when I was moving and just dealing with a lot of issues, health issues, so Anthony took over the show, and everyone noticed that every time he took over the show they were like three or four hours long people loved it

I will admit, everyone's asking for Anthony time, even now so but I want to just ask how much more time we would have of yours, because there were a bunch of questions that came up throughout and I figured, you know, if you have maybe another 30 minutes, we could do that if not, sure, yeah, let's do let me just, hold on yeah, while he takes a break

I gotta make sure, I haven't committed to yes go ahead

I had to check my little black book to make, I've already I had double booked something before and narrowly avoided embarrassment so I wanted to make sure

I didn't get embarrassed I have not been double booked but I had the reverse happen where someone booked it and they changed the date but the person who we had that was doing that back then didn't cancel the date, just added a new date, so I showed up in New York City when they were having a bike race, so it took me like six and a half hours to get home from New York City to New Jersey and so it was not the one that I really enjoyed, so I showed up and they were like, we weren't expecting you they let me preach anyway so I guess

I got an extra speaking event out of it we did have a couple things that came up throughout,

I'm gonna try to go back and just tag some of them cause some of them were pretty early,

Drew had said Dr. Lyle teaches us that in order to understand where we came from and how we got here you're dealing with history

I think what he's referring to there I know Dr. Lyle speaks very much on presuppositional apologetics which is you first gotta know

God exists before you can make sense of any of this but I don't know if you if there's more that you wanted to add as far as, cause one of the things that is,

I do find interesting, in their answers in Genesis, right you have

Ken Ham who made the distinction between observational science and historical science because a lot of people don't make that distinction and a lot of what people are calling science is more of history, so I think this went back to the question early on of we made the distinction of history and science, so I just wanted to give you a chance to just wrap that one up, cause that was one that was mentioned is doing history is that a form of science?

Okay, yes that's a good framing, especially for creationists and I had forgotten about the

I mean I grew up with the observational science versus historical science with, just to review for our audience the fundamentals of the scientific method are observation testing or observation hypothesis testing and repeatability you can't repeat history by definition it's happened, it's in the past, so how can you go back and redo it or maybe a good way of thinking about this, at least how

I've done it for myself is are you asking a present tense question or a past tense question, so my graduate work medical science is operational science the big question there was how do stem cells normally operate in the body we of course want to understand that so we can understand how things go awry cancer in a sense is a has both elements of historical science and operational science, when someone gets cancer, it's an event in the past, you can't go back and repeat it and recreate it, you can take guesses at it and try to recreate cancer in the lab treating cancer is a present tense question, does this drug cure this type of cancer and does it do it in a repetitive predictive way so we can apply it to patients did this person's cancer arise for this reason or that reason now it's a historical investigation so this is a helpful distinction to keep in mind, what

I've been somewhat surprised by over the past 12 -13 years in creation science is how much these two end up intersecting

I guess to use an example from genetics I guess I've been surprised by how much one's view of origins does play a role in basic medical questions, again genetics is playing an increasingly larger role in how we understand and treat disease but where you go looking for the cause of disease is in part a function of how you view the

DNA as a whole is it a bunch of junk, is it highly functional where things go awry there still is a distinction between historical science and operational science but I guess

I've been surprised by how much one's view of origins does have real world relevance in day -to -day questions like health and disease so I guess it's messier than I first anticipated that distinction exists and I feel like a helpful way to distinguish the two is are you asking a present tense question versus a past tense question nonetheless when someone holds to evolution or creation it will impact how you do health research and that's a sobering thought okay so we had

Reason2Doubt who was we had a lot of people very active they all seem to know one another in the chat but new to the show so welcome you to come back and to come in and offer challenges

Reason2Doubt said if future experiments show your predictions to be false will you abandon your model?

There's a couple answers to that. First, yes secondly, I have already done that historically and thirdly

I think what's behind the question is will you give up on Christianity and young earth creation and that's probably the one that's more relevant but let me back up for the first two having already done this so just to give a brief historical overview again where I began in 2009 was with mitochondrial

DNA experiments and we found this mitochondrial DNA clock that seemed to mark off 6 ,000 years of history for multiple species including humans

I got excited and thought maybe we can do the same thing for the autosomal

DNA the DNA we get from both parents 99 % of our DNA. Found something that seemed to be anti -evolutionary didn't seem to be strongly young earth creation and one of my colleagues

Rob Carter from Creation Ministries International, fellow geneticist was advancing a different model that God had created differences in Adam and Eve and I thought this is arbitrary, ridiculous you can't advance that I wanted to keep pursuing this mutation only model

I came around his view once I recognized that that view in fact makes testable predictions it's the view

I articulate in replacing Darwin science is very dynamic and people are constantly changing their mind, constantly evaluating new ideas there's times

I've sweated because or almost sweating because I'm like well how do I deal with this piece of evidence? I don't know what to do I didn't see this coming so yes

I do plan models are fluid, they're constantly changing they're constantly updating, they're adaptable so I have changed my mind on things and will abandon my model if things change in the future.

Now what is this what impact does this have on the larger question of creation evolution and I think this is relevant both for creationists listening and for evolutionists it should go without saying that the question of young earth creation versus old earth creation young earth creation versus evolution

Christianity versus other religions is a multidisciplinary interdisciplinary question that involves philosophy scripture, religion science, all these sorts of things and so if one scientific aspect changes the model

I've advanced based on this framework and I abandon it does this cause me to rethink all of Christianity? No, because frankly this is true for everyone whether they recognize it or not

I'd be hard pressed to find one person who bases his entire world view on one thing all of us subconsciously and consciously incorporating all sorts of evidence data, presuppositions into what we hold to be true it's true for me

I acknowledge that openly because I think it's true for everyone and so no it wouldn't cause me to abandon my faith. I've been in science long enough it's constantly changing science is a weak way to understand the whole world.

It may sound like I'm contradicting myself here when I've been doing science I think it's a powerful way but in the grand scheme of things how do

I know certain things are true? It is an inherently weak way and every honest scientist knows this so I don't feel any threat by my model working or not to my faith because it's such a weak way to know the world it's a process of elimination basically and there's countless things, let me just give one example here talk about the peer review process because this illustrates the inherent weakness of science.

People like to throw around the term well is your work peer reviewed why does the concept of peer review exist? Well because science is a process of elimination.

I throw out a hypothesis and I do an experiment to try to disprove it. If it survives the disproof

I keep chasing it and I try to disprove it again and I keep chasing it. Scientific ideas that are theories that are well established are those that have survived many many many many attempts to disprove it there are millions of hypotheses out there that could explain the same data equally well most likely the point is you have people come in who are so if you're doing a scientific experiment you have hypothesis you test it and you publish the results or you try to critics peer reviews come in other scientists come in and say hey you missed this you forgot about this hypothesis what about this over here science is inherently limited by human finiteness all of us have our own biases favorite ideas

I mean all of us get caught up with if you're a scientist you know this something starts working and you get caught up with it and you miss alternative explanations creation evolution get the news because they're two of the biggest ones but there's countless other ways to arrange the data in theory that no one has bothered to test so the amount of what we know versus what we don't know for any scientist who spent time doing research the amount of what we don't know is gigantic and so for my special idea to go into the realm of that doesn't work anymore join the club science is inherently weak we keep using it because it works does that mean it's true today tomorrow it might not be and so to to found your conclusions for massive questions of eternity on a fidgety process powerful but constantly changing

I think is a fundamental misunderstanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific method I say that as a scientist it gets a lot of press scientists hold a lot of authority but that masks the inherent uncertainty of it so that's why

I'm saying sure I'd be happy to abandon the model because there's a thousand of the models that might explain it anyone who doesn't understand that I don't think has been in science hardly at all and one of the things let me give folks that are watching listening something to do when people are challenged with that is the question that I often ask

I know Anthony you've asked when we're out at the reason rally or places like that I ask a very simple question right up front if I could give you sufficient evidence that God exists to your satisfaction will you believe in him you know what the most common answer

I get is no there is no evidence I'll be stopped

I said if I could give sufficient evidence to your satisfaction and they'll still say no because they're not interested in the evidence it's not evidence problems they have a spiritual problem some things that came up we have a standing for truth said

Dr. Jensen or Jensen sorry Dr. Jensen is unstoppable the real life

Iron Man so in case you were unsure if you were Iron Man or not they're big fans

I appreciate the flattering words but I'm a weak vessel who by the grace of God go where I go and I'm thankful for the opportunity to do what

I do and any successes I have are due to his grace so appreciate the kind words but you don't take compliments well do you

I'm noticing this about you well I guess this is something that's been impressed for me on my on me personally

I had a mental breakdown probably two and a half years ago and to recognize what is my job using my head so I feel like that's been sort of the

Lord saying and I can take that from you anytime you want to I would say

I've not been a a very praying person perhaps just because I feel like well what does it actually do

I mean if I ask isn't that enough there's I think a headstrong element to myself perhaps because of what

I do and who I am and my sinful nature that recent life events have caused me to say you're not who you think you are and you need to beseech the

Lord and beg him to help you to enable getting up in the morning and do your job every day in ways that I hadn't before so I guess

I'd like to think it's not false modesty it's lessons I've had to learn the hard way well that's thank you for that transparency by the way yeah that that hit home

I know I don't pray as much as I should Jason Cave who's one of our members and we can all fall into the trap by the way of compliments and what not and thinking much higher of ourselves than we really should yep especially if you hear it a lot which

Anthony does I don't so I don't have to worry as much but Jason Cave says this is awesome

Dr. Jensen I'm ordering this book for myself and my home school kids thank you for your hard work in genetics and standing up against the secular world and mainstream views and so if you want to get that book

I'll remind you go to masterbooks .com I just checked it it is live now for you to place orders go to masterbooks .com

and for the 10 % off use the code TRACED22 it may have to be on all caps but it did work for me in all caps so let me ask a question real quick and I might be opening up a can of worms but this is not even going to be on this topic it's so you did research

I'm fascinated with cancer and you know with my wife going the complete naturopathic route a couple years ago to treat her cancer successfully in seven months no chemo no radiation

I do a ton of studying a cancer especially from a naturopathic and holistic realm one thing that's fascinated me recently is

Dr. Eric Berg who's a big preacher on intermittent fasting and a clean ketogenic diets and different things things

I've been following for a while and has helped me tremendously in a number of ways he's made a comment that every single cancer is mitochondrial in origin so I know you were doing research on this mitochondria and cancer what thoughts do you have in regards to the mitochondria and what role it plays in cancer?

I should clarify perhaps I misspoke the cancer research was on so the research

I did in graduate school was on blood stem cells I didn't have any mitochondrial work that I was doing at that time

I mean let me stop for a second we were looking at potential connections between metabolism and stem cells but really the mitochondrial work has been almost exclusively in the context of creation science so just to clarify that with regards to what causes cancer

I went into graduate school with the understanding that everyone was viewing and trying to explain cancer strictly by genetics that was kind of anti -genetics as an explanation for it and was shocked when one of the first lectures

I heard was maybe still is a leading cancer researcher there at Dana -Farber

Cancer Institute where he gave sort of a historical overview of how cancer thinking has changed back to the early 1900s and showing how the dominant views basically correlated with whichever field of science was advancing the quickest so when biochemistry was being established in the early 1900s it was used as a biochemical disease and then developmental biology gained its feet and matured as a field of science and so cancer became a developmental biology problem and then of course

DNA in 1953 it became a genetic problem and so I guess

I was expecting him to say so we know it's caused by DNA and his conclusion was it's a mix of all three which it took me way back thinking here's one of the leading guys in the world talking about cancer origins and even he says if you step back and look at it there's a lot going on here a lot that we don't understand all these fields of science there's metabolic changes that occur in cancers and tumors there are so part of the connection to stem cells was there seems to be a developmental component to it there's obviously genetic correlations you can find so that was a long -winded way of saying

I don't know the connection between mitochondrial and cancer I've been out of that field basically for 12 -13 years but even back then

I was shocked by how interdisciplinary the leading voices were viewing it when

I expected there to be a monolithic genetics only it's mutations and so end of story and I'd say it's probably continuing to change in advance in ways

I don't expect. Yeah and thank you for that answer it's fascinating a lot of the stuff I've come across from the naturopathic realm and it is a lot of it's pathogenic based so that it would be viruses, bacteria, fungus, pyrocytes spirochetes, others that are the initial cause of some of those changes and so you know just I'm having a lot of fun putting all these different pieces together just seeing what's out there and some of these theories have been around for 150 years especially the pathogenic ones so and a lot of research in 1920s and 30s on that stuff so it's interesting so sorry for the aside it's a really fascinating one and the question we're asking how does cancer arise is a historical one which

I think is part of the reason it's still so debated because it's not an operation, it's not a present tense question you can't go back in time with someone who gets cancer and watch the tape we've got a bunch of other tools where we try to recapitulate it but you're dealing, that question is a historical science one treating it is an operational one but I think everyone wants to connect the two because if it originates this way you want to find a treatment that's rationally targeted towards it but there's the inherent limitation, it's a historical question and now you're stuck so and I think this summarizes on well as you were talking with Dan was refined living says best part best part what when sorry, reading it as it is what when

Dan said he knew Jensen's work but didn't actually know it and I'll have to admit myself I typed in a thing when you asked him if he's familiar with the work, he says yes familiar with the source, he said yes, but then revealed he wasn't but you were familiar with his stuff you had mentioned the stuff that you reviewed it does show us something for folks who are watching this is what we do at Apologetics Live is not just do

Apologetics but also explain so what and I'm going to speak for you Dr. Jensen you correct me but what that does is by asking you're dealing with people that are responding to something you do and they say

I'm familiar with what you do, I'm familiar with your position and then you can ask the questions as you saw there was done what does that do don't take someone's word that they're they actually are familiar with your argument they often say that and so what you ended up seeing there was a testing of that hypothesis

I'm familiar with your work, okay give the citation give the source are you familiar with the model and if all the work is based off a model but you're not familiar with the model have you really done the work and I think that's something that we can learn to do when people challenge us sometimes is don't take what they say at face value, examine it because sometimes they'll say they're familiar with something when they really are not we have one that I'll we'll take after we're done with Dr.

Jensen, he can stick on if he wants but both Anthony and I were dealing in chat with a person who claimed he used to be a

Christian and we disagreed with that and so I'm going to address that after Dr.

Jeff had said can I stop you there for a sec just to comment on familiarity and such because there's a back story here that I think may be relevant

I have put in print my answer, we alluded to this earlier why do so many people disagree with what

I'm saying 99 % of the scientific community I'll say well because they're never taught this it's evolution in, evolution out and you're never allowed to hear a different view when you have critics who say

I've read your work and I still disagree with it that is basically a counter argument to my thesis it's one of the best scenarios for saying no, sorry, you're wrong, people actually have read it and they disagree with it now,

I've got we can talk about this some other time in some cases, and I've documented this sometimes they just straight up lie sadly, even professing

Christians what I think is going on for many critics yes,

I've read it I don't want to impugn motives if I don't have good evidence for it I think for many evolutionists maybe you can call it confirmation bias creation science is stereotyped as fitting facts to conclusions somewhat dumb easy to refute so, put yourself in the shoes of the evolutionist, oh this should be easy

I'm just going to flip through it real fast I found the problems so they may think, yes, I did view

I'm trying to make the best case scenario I think what's actually going on is sure, I'm familiar with this because we all know

X, Y, and Z a stereotype of creation science which much of the work that's been done doesn't fit the stereotype and now you're caught flat footed

I think that's probably what's going on again, I'm thinking to myself if you're going to go into debate you have to know your opponent's position better than he does that's key to any debate success any debater will tell you this

I think what's going on is we know it should be easy to refute so it shouldn't take much effort,

I can just skim it or whatever it is, and I'll know the answer that's not reality there's been a lot of work that's put into it a ton of research and then you get caught flat footed

I think you can explain perhaps even tonight's scenario that way I don't think there's any lying going on maybe

I'm wrong, but I'd like to believe the best and say no, he's genuinely trying to refute this Dr.

Dan and I guess he has perhaps assumed, I can just skim this real fast or sometimes,

I've seen this sadly too many times there aren't that many people trying to engage creation science again, for the vast majority of the scientific community

I don't think they've even heard of the book Trace they've never heard of replacing Darwin they don't know that this creation research exists but there's this view that it should be easy to refute and sometimes, it's just shoved off to students or I guess

I'm thinking of peaceful science I feel like there's many examples where Josh Suamides kind of delegates it to someone else and then everyone else just kind of repeats these talking points of this person, who may not actually know what he's talking about and say go see this and it's a very poor analysis, it's not engaging it doesn't know what he's talking about I have a feeling that seems to fit the evidence best is there's this stereotype it should be easy to do, yeah

I've read it I've read the chapter headings I know what he's going to say and then you find out it's not that and then when you actually have to defend it then you get caught flat footed so I welcome criticism within the creation community within the evolutionary community, that's how science works that's to me one of the fundamental lessons of graduate school

I went in I had this quack idea of cancer that I pursued and then eventually abandoned I guess because I learned how science works and I went in thinking, the people who have a different view than me or even in the question,

I was working with stem cells the guys who have a different model than me those are my opponents those are the enemies when in fact, what you learn is the cold hard truth is the way the world operates is your enemy, you can have the enemy in a sense you can have the best hypothesis in the world and you're just wrong because that's not the way the world is it doesn't have to do with anyone or anything you've just guessed wrong and what you realize then is your critics can help you find the errors faster than if you just clumsily went along on your own and all of us want to find the real answer, the fastest and if we're sitting in our silos refusing criticism we can go chasing wrong ideas for a long time and at the end of the day just be wrong because that's not the way the world is we just guessed wrong and so it's the critics who actually are some of your best allies even though there's friction because they help you recognize the shortcomings and really, the best scientists learn to be their own worst critics because that's the way the world is you might be wrong, so you have to sit down and say where could

I be wrong in this and if I am wrong, let's abandon it as soon as possible and go chasing something else that's more likely to be right because we want to find the right answer you've got to get out of the echo chamber and that's what a critic would do real quick because I have two things from Joel Duff but Reason to Doubt said

Jensen's argument against divergent populations was essentially quote, they didn't actually diverge because if they did

I would be wrong and I can't be wrong because I went to Harvard, unquote, LOL now, just for the record

I don't think you mentioned Harvard other than maybe in your introduction but I put that up because I want folks to see how the argumentation occurs because you get arguments like that where they just say, oh,

I'm right because I'm right or, as Dr. Duff put it I seem to have stumbled onto a comedy station that's a way of just saying well, this is just comedy, this isn't real we'll just make a joke of this this is what you often see people that will use ridicule when they don't have an answer but he did say this two comments from Dr.

Duff just for you to comment on he said to Anthony, I think here it is if Jensen's model is so good why aren't all

Young Earth creationists touting it as the answer and doing experiments to support this model

I just don't understand why the ones I talk to are deeply skeptical of it and before you answer,

I think that this does get back to something you started to say there people on both sides get into the old model of things and it's hard for them to accept new things how many creationists today still believe in a canopy theory and how many have moved from that when there was different evidence you'll still have people that hold onto it and that's where I think you're saying with the old stereotype people just they don't keep up on the new stuff because they think oh

I've already learned this that's going to be my argument but that was the question to you so why do you think the

Young Earth creationists aren't jumping on if you'll put that quote back up for a second here just to make sure

I've got an accurate representation in my head of what he's saying it's a common one he's made before but I want to make sure

I've got it accurately represented in my mind before I start it which means it goes away and I've got to go before let me pull another one up in the meantime while you're looking for that Andrew so this was said by Covert Cuttlefish most biologists don't read his work because AIG is not a journal put your work out into the wild so what are some of the challenges for creationists to get their work out in the secular world this has been documented before that journals won't accept that's something that doesn't agree with creation science let me put it this way give it a different answer actually what it basically comes down to is it's a form of a circular argument

AIG is in fact is a journal I mean you can deny it but it's the answers research journal well it's not a real journal why not well you don't have peer review we actually do have peer review there are people with journals who review the science well they're not real scientists well who reviews the evolutionary work if the standard is you have to have a critic review it how many evolutionists have creation scientists review their work it's one big circular argument that falls apart and we've just seen the work going out into the wild tonight

Dr. Dan avoided the question I think you can see that objectively we'll have some more specific responses to this video where you can watch them side by side

I did a debate with Herman Mays on replacing Darwin in 2018

I think you can find it on our webpage you can find the video as well as the like a 12 ,000 word summary of it because we basically talk past each other he's a congenial guy

I mean there's some anti creationists who are just obnoxious where no one learns anything because they're just loud and angry

Mays is not that in the video you can see the video he was not obnoxious in any sense he didn't seem to read the book or at least in this case

I think it's one of those I skimmed it I know it's in it it's all the standard stuff which it's not anyone who reads it can see it's different from what goes before its new advances long story short what

I should have paid more attention to was Herman Mays' own blog this will allude to something Andrew just mentioned he wrote a blog post

I think it was 2014 couple years prior whatever the exact date was titled something like indefensive ridicule so he put this out there in the open the point of the article was this

Herman Mays PhD Marshall University biologist it's long I'll paraphrase it's long past time to acknowledge creation science is something worth debating it's been refuted that's an old story from now on we should just make fun of it that's what he was saying and that attitude

I think you can see play its way in the debate because he didn't make any serious attempt at least he gave no evidence of making a serious attempt to engage the arguments or having even read the book because there's this pervasive stereotype so that's in the background

I think is relevant there's a quote from Joel Duff so how would I answer this first of all it's a vague criticism all the other young earth creationists all the ones he talks to, well who is he talking to I can't speak to it unless I know the specific examples the more relevant question is why doesn't

Joel Duff and we'll talk about the video he produced which again is amazing he has two points in his video of reviewing

Traced I don't think he actually had a review of replacing Darwin that I could tell he talked about he was going to watch the response to replacing

Darwin so he's doing the same thing here with Traced he did have a video review about an hour video review of Traced two basic points one of which was that ancient

DNA as Dr. Dan talked about from Neanderthals from fossil sequences probably from Italy you'd say the same thing these refute what creation scientists are saying and you watch what he says and he literally thinks

I've missed it he thinks that I know that Neanderthal sequences exist I've just tried to ignore them thank you for acknowledging that you've never read the 2019 paper where I tested and refuted that hypothesis

I just thought oh this is amazing that's what I'm thinking someone must have come up with the talking points and distributed them because that's a pretty egregious basic error where hey

I found this big hole in your argument actually I addressed that two and a half years ago I think you missed the paper

I don't know how how do you do that and it's out there recorded anyway it's a fundamental error so I guess my first response to this would be why doesn't

Joel Duff do it I think we have an answer is he's not even read it so if he's not reading it isn't even aware of these papers makes these fundamental errors of scientific review that's a bigger answer to this question that he's asking here

Ian had said I wonder why all flat earthers are young earth creationists now here's the thing

I'm just going to answer they're not all young earth creationists in fact the founder of the flat earth society is a agnostic

I jokingly said it probably atheist I was wrong he's agnostic therefore does that mean by using the argument that if all flat earthers are young creationists first off it's not but does that mean that well evolutionary science is not true because the founder of the flat earth society is agnostic does that mean all agnostics believe in flat earth these are the sort of comments you get from people and you see the faulty logic that ends up occurring

I did say that we'd let you go I know Dr. Dan is still in the background

I'm wondering if Dr. Dan if you're still there put your camera back on that way

I would know and I want to bring you back in I want to ask you one one burning question not one but you're a biologist

I have two biologists here I have a burning question that has been asked recently I'm wondering if you can help out with I know that it can't be answered by supreme court justices what is a woman oh you do not want me to go down this road because sex determination and development

I mean Dr. Jensen is probably more familiar with developmental biology than I am but that's a really complicated question especially when you consider the complexities of human biology we can go down that road but I mean it's already almost 1115 how much time is that we may have to have you come back just for that then

I look I actually do I talk in class about sex determination chromosomal determinants hormonal determinants what determines sex

I see that's that there's no short there is no answer to that question that I could answer in the time that we have tonight really yes it is a really complicated question it is a really complicated question so it's not a question of chromosome

X versus Y 100 % no and no okay so so so here be a question is it the bone structure it's it's multifactorial there's lots of components to it when we go back and we look at say

Lucy we can't really know if that's really a girl right we can develop mentally be reasonably certain based on the proportions of certain bones specifically like hips pelvis that kind of thing we can be reasonably certain about it in some cases but not in others it's not a 100 % thing okay like yeah ask me the question 12 different ways if you want but you're going to get the same answer each time well

I want to have you come back just for that because I don't think it's all that complex I would answer it very simply a woman is what

God who created the women defines it as God created her he gets to give the definition so it's a woman is what

God calls a woman but I may we may have to have you back on for that that could be fun by the way I actually

I don't know if you saw my message in the private chat but I didn't see where you put your email so if you don't mind just putting it in there and I'll put it in there yeah

I did a while ago but hey I do want to I do want to say thank you for coming the conversation you two had was very cordial I always get nervous because when people come in there we never know so you're welcome back to come in and it might be fun to have that discussion it's definitely a fun conversation it's one of my favorite classes that I teach every year when we talk about development and sex determination it is a really fun topic

I'm going to say that this is an example where sometimes we see people that interpret the Bible using culture to define that what

I'm going to argue we're seeing science be interpreted by culture that culture is interpreting science and we use culture to define because I think that's where this came from this was something that never occurred this difficult definition until 10 years ago it was a mental disorder 15 to 20 years ago

I will say this on that topic that this is not a new thing it's just a now we're acknowledging it thing but this has always been

I mean there was a Roman emperor that was if they were alive today they would probably be transgender like that was the thing so like this is not a new thing for humanity it's just we're kind of addressing it like more mainstream now okay all right thank you

Dr. Jensen I'm going to ask you that same question what is a woman? I just have to say first one of the things my wife loves to do is a answer so he could get going no go ahead it gives me more time to articulate an answer one of the things my wife loves to do is go to garage sales we love to go witnessing handing out gospel tracts talking to people and I like to pick up old dictionaries and encyclopedias and the reason why is because in this age of post modernism and post truth that we live in people can claim all they want about what the historical context of male and female are and all kinds of stuff but go back to the old dictionaries pick them up buy them and see what they say right sex and gender are considered synonyms they're not different medical journals of 15 20 years ago psychologists were calling us a mental disorder

I mean this is this is what it is and just because we're in a post truth and a whatever society today

I don't even know what to call it anymore right it's this mix of post modernism post truth whatever believe whatever you want to believe

I had said to you there was the cake gender which is defined as either someone who's light and fluffy or many layers and it's like well that's personality that's confusing the two that's not this sex or gender but yeah it's very frustrating to hear somebody who has a

PhD and to not be able to answer that question I don't know go on doctor yes

I'd say male and female you have defined genetically very clearly females xx males xy for humans we talk about sexual versus asexual it's built into our vocabulary and thinking it has been for a long time are there cases where you have something other than xx or xy sure then the question becomes does the exception prove the rule or does the exception become the rule and that's where you have worldview issues built in and modern society tries to make the exceptions the rule and just go haywire with it even though that binary is built into what we do it's just no one saying it and has been built into what we do for quite some time so I think you've already alluded to this it ultimately goes back to so how do you adjudicate that how do you adjudicate whether you make the exception the rule or the rule do you make the exception one that proves the rule or do you make the exception the rule how do you adjudicate that and I think it ultimately goes back to a worldview issue and you answer it based on ultimate truth which

I would answer based on scripture God creates male and female we live in a fallen world so exceptions happen things aren't the way they used to be but there's male and female and then there's unfortunate things that occur rarely in the world and it's not the only type of thing where things aren't the way they used to be but understanding that I think is critical to human thriving to being what

God created us to be and to function the way he created us to function yeah and this is a reason to doubt here hang on Jensen just said there are exceptions so it's not just XX or XY then so let's be clear there are mistakes that occur genetically where some people are born with Klinefelter syndrome

XXX syndrome other things which are mutations not part of God's original creation of male and female so it doesn't change anything it is binary it's male or female and then there are some mistakes genetic mistakes

I don't know if you want to say anything else to that Dr. Jensen yeah and I guess I feel like even that illustrates the worldview element

I think it right mainstream response well everything's a mistake which comes from the evolutionary view that every single

DNA difference chromosomal difference is ultimately the product of change mutations over time very different from the creationist worldview and this whole concept of exceptions proving the rule versus exceptions becoming the rule we operate

I'd say in a rational way in most other areas of life there are zebras that lose stripes there are zebras that look there's weird odd exceptions in zebras but we've used the term zebras as if such a concept exists we use it all the time we don't let the exception become the rule the exception proves the rule anyway that's just one silly example but I'd say most of us operate our lives with a recognition that exceptions prove the rule they don't become the rule and suddenly we question everything we've we've ever held so anyway okay so I got to put this

I was going to put up that were you really saying people born without xx or xy mistakes let me ask you a different question somebody with down syndrome is that a mistake in the genetic code so I mean this is this is a really

I'm sorry this is a really dumb comments because we see this stuff all the time I mean well hold on hold on because his next comment his next comment he says are you saying that people born without xx or xy are mistakes then he says love your neighbor boys well loving your neighbor is not taking a mental illness and making them feel comfortable in a mental illness that is why suicide is up in that group higher than any other because you're trying to convince them that it's okay and they're going okay let me throw myself into this mental illness and they're not getting better but at least give him credit he did get us all right as boys so yeah how does he know that we never said that I know

I never claimed what I was but it's just kind of apparent isn't it so Dr.

Jensen I want to thank you for coming on you can stay we're gonna we're gonna wrap up a couple other things that we saw in the comments you're more than welcome to stick up stick around for a couple more minutes but I want to thank you for coming on folks get his new book traced go to masters masterbooks .com

and use the coupon code to get 10 % off TRACED in all caps TRACED22 to get your coupon code there so that'll be available till July 1st

July 4th sorry so go get that you'll get to read all the details that we couldn't get into in this show also go listen to my

Andrew Rapaport's rap report where that just dropped yesterday where we're able because there weren't the questions we got into a lot more detail we never did get into Genesis 10 like I wanted to you touched on it you touched on it but we really wanted to focus a lot of time on that but it seems you have a following of people that wanted to come in and ask some questions too both in chat and online so but thank you for coming on thank you very much for the opportunity really appreciate it and it's been a pleasure

I will bow out here to attend to my family but I thanks for all the time that you gave me to discuss this so yep well

I appreciate it thanks for coming and maybe we can get you back sometime I'll say more things about you when you're not when you drop out that way you don't have to feel embarrassed thank you very much so I just click leave studio right that won't mess things up no only when

I do it I actually end the broadcast when I do it and mess things up well thanks again and thanks to all the audience as well and to Dan and others for coming on too it's a privilege thank you good night so for another couple minutes

I will say that having got to meet him in person I hope you guys picked up very humble person this is one of the things

Jason told me about him is that he's very humble and very down to earth and I hope you guys appreciate that okay so so there was some people

Anthony you and I were going back and forth with and I just want to wrap up with this because there was a lot both you and I were talking with this the issue with and I forget who

I think it was I can't remember if it was reason to doubt or rainy day Thursday reason to doubt is who so he was claiming that he was a

Christian and it was very interesting because they were saying we were saying no you weren't and they were challenging it as if are you saying we can't change our minds and for those who are following along in the chat

I want to explain some of the logic that Anthony and I were doing okay one of the questions that I had asked him is point blank because he claimed he used to be a

Christian I said I asked the question was the bible your ultimate authority he said yes

I said well the bible says in 1 John 2 19 you were never a

Christian if that was your ultimate authority you acknowledge you were never a

Christian I then later had said that if what ended up happening was rainy

Thursday was saying so you're saying that someone can't change their mind and what he did was misrepresent what

I said he's saying you're saying that someone can't have a thought and then later realize they're wrong

I said no that's misrepresentation because my issue is about the ultimate authority you see what

I ended up saying afterwards if the ultimate authority is the bible you can't change your mind on that because that's your ultimate authority and as a

Christian the bible is our ultimate authority so as a Christian what God says goes but if I'm the ultimate authority then yes

I can change my mind because the ultimate authority is not God's word it's my word and so maybe

I'm convinced today that that is but since I'm the ultimate authority tomorrow I'll be convinced something else that's not what a

Christian would do and that's why I asked that question and that's what you ended up seeing if you're watching the chat where he had to misrepresent what

I said and give a different say something different because if it's the ultimate authority you can't change your mind on it

Anthony you also engaged with them the repeal they were saying it's no true Scotsman fallacy which another one just did too yeah

I just saw that so I'll answer that real quick too the true Scotsman fallacy as I said in the comments back then is if there's a true definition of a

Scotsman you're born in Scotland you have Scottish citizenship that's the definition of a

Scotsman saying that a true Scotsman fallacy comes up for someone saying that well if you know true

Scotsman would drink tea with milk I forget the exact phrase of what the original issue was but it was like well no

Scotsman drinks tea with milk someone says well there's a Scotsman and he has milk in his tea well no true

Scotsman well that's not based on the definitional argument for what defines the

Scotsman in this case so the Bible gives us a definitional argument of what is a

Christian so it's not a true Scotsman fallacy but I didn't even go that route

I asked him if he believed that the Bible was the ultimate authority once he said yes that proves that what 1st

John 2 .19 says they went out from among us because they were never of us they went out from us to expose that they were not of us so if he went out from us he's believing the

Bible is the ultimate authority he's saying he believed that he was never of us so when he says no I did believe

I was of you you can't if you're saying that you believe the Bible is your ultimate authority that's that logic that I was trying to give

Anthony you were having an engagement as well and obviously I was looking at it with everything you said there in addition to the fact that if the

Bible is your ultimate authority it says thy word is truth in John 17 .17 that means that if you believe

God's word is true you're not going to have your own reasoning at some point become the higher authority and now determine it's not true yep and that's the fundamental issue so so having said that I'm going to address one more thing and then

I would love for you to give a gospel presentation Andrew for all that are that are on here but you know reason for doubt has been upset about my statement about mistakes and KT says

I think they're misunderstanding as I know they don't think someone disabled or with abnormal chromosomes are mistakes as people as to God that's correct so I want to clarify this statement

God's original creation was a perfect creation Genesis 1 .31 he looked over his entire creation called it very good exceedingly perfect and after that we all know what happened the fall

Adam and Eve ate from the fruit and the entire creation fell so now all of a sudden genetic mistakes are in play all of a sudden we see evil in the world all of a sudden we see all kinds of bad stuff happening all of a sudden we see weeds now growing in gardens right

I mean all the bad stuff we see comes from from the fall Adam's fault and so while God is sovereign everything that occurs is is according to his purposes everything is to his good everything is to his glory and yet it is still a fallen creation where these mistakes happen if you want to know more about that maybe

Andrew and I can do a an episode in the future on the problem of evil how do we reconcile this how do we understand

God being the ultimate cause of all things I spoke on this a little bit I think last week or the week before we can certainly do that but the point is is that God's original creation is male and female as a result of the fall and genetic issues now we have

XXX we have XXY we have other things that are genetic mistakes that is what they are down syndrome is a genetic mistake

God is sovereign over all of that and yet those mistakes are occurring as a result of Adam and the fall so I just want to make sure that is really really clear in our descriptor here so yes there is still binary male or female that is still the case and yet there are also mistakes that are that are out there so we wouldn't we wouldn't call down syndrome not a human being and yet that is a mistake in the genetic code yeah and I let me get to the issue of evil but let me say

Dr. Duff says that there is a Hebrew word for perfect but the word Moses was inspired to use was good so incorrect to say that it was perfect in the textual sense

I'm gonna I don't have that off hand to be ready to give an answer but I will try to get to look into that for next week so yeah that's an old

Biologos thing yeah that might be good to address next time yeah I mean I'll look into the

Hebrew and see for full disclosure Dr.

Joel Duff if you look him up he he was featured on Biologos at one time the same organization started by Francis Collins who we all know what happened with him during the old

NIH thing in the last couple years in COVID they are an organization who pretends they're

Christian and they believe in evolution and they try to merge the two together they're very well funded I could say a lot about them but they are an absolute evil and terror to Christianity overall and in having said all that they have all kinds of of what you call apologetic against the young earth creationists very similar to Hugh Ross and his reasons to believe ministry maybe in the future we could do you could do a show on Biologos but you know the thing that Anthony was saying is the fact that when

God created in the beginning there was no sin we see that in Romans that there was no death before sin so therefore there was until there was death until there was sin there was no death what happened when

Adam had partaken of that fruit was to violate God's law he set himself up as saying he was going to do it his way this is not uncommon today why?

because once he did that there became a curse of sin on all of creation that was brought in by what

Adam did he was our federal head and in doing such we ended up with a position where we are all born into this world with a sin nature we break

God's law that's natural to us we do not keep his law we lie, we cheat, we steal whatever we can get away with one of the things that you end up seeing in studies that have been done is that when people believe that there is an afterlife they're more likely to do what is right than when they think there's no consequences why is that?

well very simply one is because the accountability we know that's there when we know that there's an afterlife it's because we know

God exists but the reality is every one of us knows God exists, God says so and he created us, he doesn't lie, he's the one that knows, the creator knows us better than we know ourselves and so the creator has said that every one of us knows that he exists, we're without excuse and I know someone was saying, just quoting a bible verse does that prove it?

well God has not only given us the knowledge of himself but that his word is true so we know that not only

God exists but he has spoken and that's why we quote the scriptures because whether you accept that as God's word or not doesn't matter we know that God has put it in your heart, that his word will be what it penetrates and so if it doesn't, guess what, that just means when you stand before God as judge he's going to judge you because of the things you've done most people think their works are good the reality is there's two books that God says he's going to judge us by in the last days the book, the first book is the

Lamb's book of life, those people that are listed there are those who are Christians and those who are saved and are going to have eternal life the other book is interestingly named the book of works, the very things people think are going to get them out of heaven are the very things that are going to get them into hell it's the very thing that's going to condemn them because their works compared to God's work is disingenuous we can never pay an eternal fine because we've broken

God's law and he is an eternal being, it has an eternal consequence it's based on who he is, now you say well wait that doesn't make sense, the crime should have the same penalty, not true you know this in any country, in this country in America you threaten my life, the police are going to tell you to stay away from me you threaten

Joe Biden's life because he's president, you're going to go to jail the threat was the same, it became who you threatened, it makes the difference

God is infinitely holy and infinitely just and it carries an infinite consequence, and so we can never pay it because it's infinite the only way we can pay is having an eternal source pay it, someone who is infinite to pay it once in time but that's not enough for God to just do that, he had to be human like us, so God had to become a man and he did that, led a perfect life, never violating

God's law, dying on a cross and that death was the payment that was needed being

God he paid the eternal fine, being a human he paid for us that is how we can have grace and mercy, it's through what he did, we have the justice of God that he fully paid the consequence now he can offer the grace and mercy to us because the payment was made, you can't have a just God and a merciful

God unless that God eternal God pays the price himself that's what

Jesus did on the cross 2000 years ago, he paid the fine we owe, now one of the things you see is many of the people that are commenting in the chat and they're upset because we're

Christians, many of them probably don't like us just for that fact let me speak to you directly and say we care about you, why do we do this show we do this show to help

Christians have better arguments to be able to defend the faith but why, because our greatest concern is where you'll spend eternity, eternity is a very long time to be wrong you've probably planned for many things in your life, you've planned your job, your career, marriage kids, retirement but have you planned what happens a second after you die because after that it's too late you don't make the choice after the fact so as a question of what you do with Jesus Christ now you need to repent, that means to turn in our thinking, turn from trusting ourselves or our good works or even our genealogy, in other words

I trusted my Judaism and thought that was going to get me saved that I was going to be in heaven just because I was

Jewish no you can't trust any of those things you stop trusting self and turn and trust

Christ that's what we all must do so my challenge to you, I know that many of you who have been listening and you you're watching and you're saying you know what

Christians are crazy you disagree with us the question is when you face

God on judgment day are you going to have an excuse no you're not I know that for sure because you heard the gospel tonight my plea to you is to consider where you're going to spend eternity and turn to Christ and live so next week we're going to be having a another maybe spirited conversation with someone who is not a believer on the issue of abortion and so next week we have someone that's going to come in at least

I hope because folks as you know the history of this show has proven that many people who challenge me

I think Anthony as well but I can only speak to myself but many people who have challenged me don't show up when it comes to game time

I'm just a little lovable little fuzzball, I don't get it I'm not that mean but I guess they just don't like coming in in the end but I do want to give an invitation out to Dr.

Joel Duff you know if you could if you want to come in and talk with us,

I know you've been chatting a lot and just go to info at striving4eternity .org

info at striving4eternity .org would love to have maybe you and Anthony discuss some of the things that you guys were discussing in the chat that would be good to do so this show is open to anyone anyone can come in and give any challenge so I've said before I'll say again

I can answer any question you have about God and the Bible because I don't know is a perfectly good answer

Anthony any last things you want to say before we close? Well and reason to doubt if you're still watching and you said you'd be willing to come on and talk with us about your saying that you used to be a

Christian and no longer a Christian same email address info at striving4eternity .org

contact us there and we'd love to schedule you to come on and just talk through that Yeah that would be a scheduled thing where we're going to give you more time like we did

Dr. Jensen but you can always come on just like you know David and Dan came in apologeticslive .com

every Thursday you can come in we will answer all these questions were kind of in line but they're not always so we hope to see you next week and remember to strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God see you then