Debate: Is Evolution Scientifically Possible

Mr. Smalley, do you believe that abortion is moral? Oh boy I'm glad I'm debating him instead of you. All right, welcome to apologetics live. We are live Thursday night. Here to answer your questions typically but not tonight.

Tonight is one of these nights where we have a formal debate. And when we have formal debates, we do not have participants and Therefore you can put comments. We will read the comments as they come in and if there's time at the end.

We will take your comments and ask them to the panels for discussion. So if you do have comments just put them in will I'll be monitoring for them. This is again apologetics live. We're here every Thursday night 8 o 'clock Eastern Time.

We usually will answer any kind of questions. James White is busting on me that my green screen is gone and I no longer have a brick wall. I will get a better green screen. Instead of my empty books as we'll see when we bring Anthony in he can now brag.

He has more books on his bookshelf than I do. But oh well, so with We we are gonna try to not do too many announcements here because we want to get right to debate give the the guys as much time as they they.

So they can have all the time to use so but just to mention to check out striving for attorney org. The stuff we have going on now that you're in, you know Confinement like the rest of the world. It's a good time to go to striving for attorney org.

Check out the Academy classes that we have for free. It is a good time to just sit around. Take some classes and get some some education. I'm gonna bring in so the topic tonight is The the formal topic that was agreed upon as I try to look for it is evolution.

Scientifically possible that is the topic on the pro is I'm gonna bring him in is Patrick Dennis Patrick I'm gonna give you a chance to introduce yourself.

Patrick Dennis Introduces His Background in Microbiology and Cancer Biology

Okay, you hear me just fine, yes we do. Okay. I just wanted to make sure since I've been shuffling Chrome tabs and screens around I didn't muck anything up. Well, I am a undergraduate Degree holder in microbiology.

I went to the University of Texas at Arlington about 20 years ago graduated with the bachelor's degree in 1999 Major microbiology minor in chem. And then about five years ago. I completed a master's degree thesis independent research project in Biological Sciences Department there at Texas Tech and I focused on cancer biology.

So that's my background.

And I guess get started now after my dog quits scratching. Well, I'm gonna bring Anthony in to introduce himself so hold on. And. Here, we'll bring Anthony in. Go ahead. Introduce yourself before we start with openings.

Hi.

I'm Anthony Silvestro for those of you who don't know me. My undergrad I was a dual major in math and chemistry and went on to dental school. You're not really a doctor. Wait a minute. I'm not a real doctor.

I'm a dentist. It is a real doctor, that's okay. And and you know, I was an evolutionist for a year the rope is 11 years ago now and Can see absolutely clearly. And there's questions that I wish I would have asked two years ago and didn't know to ask Of any biology teacher I ever had both in high school college and dental school.

Okay, we are gonna be concerned about your internet because it was breaking up a bit you if we if it continues you may have to turn yourself off camera, but make sure there's no one in your house like watching movies or Trying to figure out how to you know, watching YouTube videos on how to save Red Cardinals.

All right. All right, so I'm going to I will bring in Patrick. The way we're gonna do this folks is we're gonna have for folks who are Regulars here at Apologetics live, you know how we do the debates.

It's gonna be a 10-minute opening. Patrick is on the pro so he's gonna start he'll do a 10-minute opening. Anthony will do a 10-minute opening. Patrick will do a 15-minute cross-examination followed by Anthony with a 15-minute cross-examination.

Sorry rebuttal. Sorry 15 minute rebuttals, then they will have 20 minutes each for cross-examinations the way that we do the cross-examinations. They will each get one minute to ask a question and then they the opposing person has two minutes to answer the questions.

If a question is not answered. The person can say that they didn't feel it was answered the time doesn't count against them. The person has two minutes to answer that question and the one minute is not a time where people can ask Questions or make statements is a time for asking questions so if either of the people end up not answering questions, I will call either side out if either side of them is Making a statement during the one-minute question.

I'll call them out. We want to make sure that we do that and then after that there will be a 10-minute closing. Patrick will start and then Anthony will finish if there's time left any questions that I see in in the comments we will be asking them and so Chris Han holds asked the first question.

He just says wait, we're quarantined. Okay, so he must live somewhere where he's not. All right. So with that, let me get our clock going the clock will disappear and only appear in the last two minutes.

So Let's get this ready. Are you ready Patrick? Sure. All right, go for it okay, so.

What I want to start out by showing is These pictures from the two science journals nature and science. And I really just do do that to start off I'm trying to demonstrate the relationship of their evolutionary biology and other disciplines in biology.

But well, let me start over a little interruption there I really just do this to Demonstrate that there are some aspects of biology that creationists are accepting of such as biotechnology the sequencing of the coelacanth genome Would be one example of biotechnology.

Okay, and There are other aspects of biology that they aren't accepting of such as insect phylogeny okay, that's basically a Cover of a journal that's talking about a paper where they worked out some of the evolutionary relationships between different types of insects but obviously the Study on the right relied heavily on the same sort of technology on the as Sequencing and other things like that.

So there's really no conflict within the holder the wider broad field of Biology between evolutionary biology and the techniques they use they all synergize with one another and There's just you know, no sense for saying something like DNA disproves evolution or you know When DNA sequencing is one of the primary techniques used in evolutionary biology these days.

And I live next to the train tracks. So if you're having problems hearing me, let me know and I'll yell What evolution is is really just the study of biodiversity. So I think I'm gonna have to spend a large amount of time talking about what evolution isn't just to save time of the opposing side talking about How evolution doesn't coincide with this Observation or that observation when evolution has nothing to do with that particular thing.

You might as well complain that Evolution you can't really say that evolution isn't scientific and then say it because it doesn't explain why the sky is blue. Well, it's not meant to Explain certain things so that's not really a valid criticism.

One of those examples that you commonly see online and social media is the conflation of evolution with the biochemical origin of life so evolution just as a starting point needs a population of imperfectly Replicating genetic Union units.

Could it could be organisms cells? Animals plants viruses as we're learning about right now. It needs a population. It doesn't discuss how those populations came to be it needs something in the starting gate and that's a Genetic unit that can Reproduce and that genetic unit or population needs to reproduce imperfectly.

Otherwise, we would just be talking about carbon clones and There would be no need to talk about evolution because they would always stay the same from generation to generation. Another thing that evolution isn't is It's not predicated on an increase in complexity or information.

It may actually result in those but those are Consequences not predicates so a good Example that would illustrate this is saying which is which is more complex and which has more information. Tetrapod limb on the left.

I think that's a mousepaw or a lobe finned fish limb on the right. All tetrapods are descended from lobe finned fishes. But I don't really know how you're going to say one is more complex or has more information in it than the other.

Okay, I had this slide actually deals with something that might that evolution is and it's also a clarification of terms microevolution. That's variation at the subspecies level or if you want to talk about something that's current events COVID -19 a strain things that may differ based on just a few nucleotides or sets of genomic loci Would define a strain and we can determine how strains of COVID -19 have propagated across the globe based on DNA sequencing.

In other words, we have imperfectly replicating genetic units that Vary as they reproduce from generation to generation. On the left is just different varieties of tiger. They're all the same species of tiger.

They're just separated by Geographic locations, so they do Start to acquire some of their own isolated traits through that isolation and into separate gene pools. Okay, so I've defined showing you what microevolution is and now we get into some of the gray areas that maybe some people Don't understand as well.

Okay Speciation is actually microevolution. So you a lot of times you may talk think that macroevolution really only applies to say comparing mammals to reptiles to insects or whatever. Okay, so I have here 20 examples of different species of lady beetle.

They're all different species. They don't intermingle in terms of their reproduction maybe if you found Species that were geographically very near each other that were derived from a recent common ancestor.

You might be able to find that but on the whole they're isolated reproductive populations and their species and that is the cutoff point for macroevolution in terms of the scientific definition. Any you know if you talk about different orders different classes different phyla, that's also macroevolution but those Categories and those levels Start and become established at the level of speciation.

Okay. Now let's talk about The acceptance of evolution throughout different Forms of creationism, I'm really not concerned with the two models on the left what I really want to focus on here is the Third one, which is sort of the AIG Ken Ham model and The biologos model which are the evolutionary creationist or the theistic evolutionists on the far right.

As you can see There are some differences, but they're all some commonalities. They all have sort of a they're all Demonstrating or sort of trying to portray or convey What happens as a result of speech speciation in the form of a branching motif?

The only difference is is that the young earth creationists typified by Kim Ham and AIG sort of have a Orchard or an orchard model and that's they typically use the terminology of kinds or created kinds each one of those four stems at the bottom or consequence of a special creation they claim whereas the evolutionary creationist theistic evolutionists as well as just the agnostic biologists all All Look at evolution in terms of unified clades and the only way that the the the only reason that the two models vary is because the young earth creationists set an arbitrary Point by.

Sorry, my dogs distracting me by breaking those groups up. Okay. Let me shut her up. You shut up. Okay, so In other words just to sum up they have very very similar attributes. Okay, so let's look at the next slide why is it not appearing okay.

Okay, so let me focus in on this particular slide, this is a slide that Kim Ham used in his debate with Bill Nye and He put up his you know, just like the previous slide he's got four Fibers, he's got six this time the previous slide had four four stems.

This has six stems Representing different types of animals that he thinks were created kinds the the fourth one is just ceratopsians Prehistoric non avian dinos and he think he's using this graph or diagram to show that all Subsequent ceratopsians are just derived from initially Created pair.

Okay time Right, that's time. That was time. Okay, that was ten minutes. Yeah. Well a little bit left over for my closing.

Okay, sure. I didn't. Where is that? Very well. Sorry, not a problem. I and I paused it when your dog was barking. No worries with that. I said I didn't. I didn't count it against you. All right, let me bring Dr. Silvestro in and Your clock starts when you're ready.

You ready? I'm ready. All right go.

First of all, I want to thank Patrick for agreeing to be here today to debate this topic at hand. And I want to thank Andrew for being willing to host and moderate this debate for us. Second my primary purpose is that it is to see Patrick said look for both people who know me.

I don't care for doing debates. But I do him in situations like this because my heart is To see the lost saved Patrick. We're both sinners. Meaning we've both broken God's laws and deserve just punishment and health for eternity.

But in God's grace, he sent his son to pay the penalty died the death that we deserve Through his death on the cross burial and resurrection. He paid that penalty in full for those who repent and believe the gospel.

Molecules demand evolution is just a way for people such as myself at one time and such as yourself today To suppress the truth about the Creator God that you'll be held accountable to without excuse when you die.

Now for the topic at hand today is evolution scientifically possible. It makes sense that we define our terms right off the bat. So Patrick, I commend you it's starting to define some of the terms. Although we have some disagreements here.

So if by evolution we mean a generic definition of change over time Patrick and I would agree that generically change does happen over time. If by evolution we mean some type of change within a biblical kind.

Like what secular science tries to explain in scientific journals such as natural selection adaptation the like we would also Somewhat to mostly agree that those concepts can be scientific at least to a degree.

However, what we are debating today is whether molecules to man evolution called macro evolution by many is Scientifically possible and to that question. I give a resounding no. In order to lay out my argument.

We need to define the term science according to Webster's new collegiate dictionary the definition of science is knowledge attained through study or Practice or knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws.

Especially as obtained and tested through scientific method and concern with a physical world according to the Science Council. Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

So from these two sources as well as every other source that I've checked Science is defined by knowledge gained through the scientific method. Therefore science knowledge is not gained through hypothetical ideas philosophical musings or even one's imagination.

What then is the scientific method by which we can do real science? The scientific method consists of usually six steps according to most places. Number one make an observation and define purpose. Number two construct hypotheses based off of that.

Number three test that hypothesis and collect data. Number four analyze that data. With that data, we're going to draw a conclusion and then communicate those results. We must then if our test showed that our hypothesis seems to be right according to one test.

We must have lots of repetition repeat these tests over and over again. We must critically analyze these tests. There must be falsibility or falsify ability to these tests by the way. And then in that we verify through this testing.

And not just us but it has to have critical exposure to scrutiny peer review and assessment. So in simple terms for anything to be scientific according to scientists a Hypothesis must be made from an observation and that hypothesis must be run through the scientific method.

With multiple repeatable and verifiable results in order to call something a theory that's science every def every definition every journal out there. That's science. However, there's a clarification needs to be made here.

What we just talked about is called experimental science. There are actually two types of science experimental which we just established and something called historical. Experimental science where one would use the scientific method is Catastrophically problematic for the molecules to man evolutionist.

One of my first questions of Patrick during the Q &A time will deal with this very issue. I will ask him this question. He's gonna know ahead of time. Has it ever been observed? That any that one kind of animal has ever evolved into another kind.

Examples would include an ape like creature evolving to a man. How about a chicken or a bird from a dinosaur as nearly every zoo in America claims? And while I'm not a prophet if he's being honest his answer will be no.

When I asked the next question, why not? He will most likely say that not enough time has passed to observe this macro evolution to occur in Using experimental science. The person is trying to test an observation today.

That is repeatable, but macro evolution is not observable. Let alone testable and repeatable. Molecules man evolution isn't actually scientific according to the standards not set forth by me. But set forth by scientists in scientific journals all over the world for decades.

So because of this historical science must be employed to see if molecules to man evolution is even possible. Historical science uses observations made today that are testable and repeatable to try and guess what happened in the past like Molecules man evolution an example of historical science would be trying to figure out the perpetrator in an unsolved murder and then bringing that person to trial where there's no eyewitnesses.

The detective must utilize clues that can be observed and test them to try and figure out who the murderer was. This circumstantial evidence at best can possibly provide a very good guess as to who the murderer was.

At worst it wrongly convicts someone who is innocent. This means that the circumstantial evidence can lead to a completely wrong conclusion. In the case of molecules man evolution because it is not scientific from an experimental science perspective.

Let's be honest You can't observe it. The only way to determine if it is scientific is if we can test things today that may contribute to evolution. Thus within the historical science fantasy of Molecules man evolution we can attempt to use experimental science to test things.

We can actually observe in the present While molecules demand evolution as many aspects to it. We can boil everything down to its mechanism of action. On the most basic level getting to the micro details of molecules demand evolution.

How does it supposedly work? If I can demonstrate that the supposed mechanism of molecules demand evolution isn't science then I will have won the debate. Throughout the course of today we will do just that.

While this is enough to destroy molecules man evolution and show that it isn't scientifically possible. There's more. Have you noticed that evolutionists always want to start with a single simple cell.

We saw this in Patrick's opening. This is predictable. Why. Because they all do this. It's because they have another catastrophic problem. This is why Scientists estimate that an average single cell has a hundred trillion atoms.

Here's the catastrophic problem. How did trillions of non-living atoms arise at the exact same time in the exact same place? Coalescing to billions of molecules proteins and machines that a very specific design and function and Then form a living cell that can take in nutrients metabolize Excrete waste products and reproduce.

Here's a clue they didn't and scientists know that in Fact the statistics show it is impossible for a single medium-length essential protein to build a form. Impossible in the billions of years. This universe has been around let alone all the proteins necessary for life.

See one very modest protein or functional protein probability. Would this size of this would be a hundred and fifty amino acids. The probability of a 150 chain amino acid protein moderate sized protein to form is one in ten to the hundred and sixty-fourth power.

For one protein to form the simplest form of life has three hundred or four hundred of these proteins. Simplest cell possible, which means that take ten to the one hundred sixty-fourth power and multiply that by three to four hundred.

That's insane. You're taught the improbability. NASA's improbability statistic is ten to the fiftieth power. The the amount of known particles in the entire universe is somewhere around ten to the eightieth power and yet We've got a power for we've got one protein to form is is one chance in ten to the hundred and sixty-fourth power.

It's it's insanely impossible. See non life pond scum turning the life isn't scientific. It's magic. So not only do evolutionists not have a mechanism for molecules and man evolution to work and they ignore the problem of how life Originated and how the supposed first cell coming to be they also disregard one other thing.

Where did all the matter in the universe come from that is needed for molecules man evolution to be able to occur. There's only three possibilities. Number one the universe created itself. That's not scientific.

Number two. The universe has always existed. This is required an infinitely old universe. This goes against all known science like the second law of thermodynamics, so that's not scientific which leaves us with one possibility.

God the universe was created by God on every level. Evolution is not scientific has no viable mechanism. Can't explain how the first cell came into being and ignores how all the matter came into existence in the first place time.

Thank you. All right put you back. All right. Let me reset the clock here Patrick and while I do it'd be time I could let you know that if you. You had a couple more slides. Did you want to use them in your rebuttal at all just so I know.

Well, no because I can just refer back to them once that are relevant you've already seen.

Yep, just wanted to know whether to purchase for that. All right.

Appreciate the question, but we'll try to do without it. Okay. 15 minutes when you're ready. Okay, so. Well, you know what given that amount of time I thought we were in the two minute back and forth.

Can you just turn it back on? Yep. This is Rebuttal. It really has to it has does have specifically address something he said and I hope we're not timing now because we're just trying to.

Stop the clock. I'm not gonna I'm not gonna run your time when we're asking a question of format. No, we you could if you if you feel that their son rebuttal you want to rebuttal to his his opening. But if you feel that your slides are gonna to help with yeah, okay.

Let's just go on with that. Let's just act like.

I'm Finishing up, but it's still relevant to the rebuttal. So let's just put my slides about on and go from there and if you feel like if you feel like I'm deviating from the format just let me know and I'll try to rephrase or Redirect my course, okay.

Okay, sure. Okay, so I knew molecules demand would come up. It's just something made me for a question-and-answer. Section coming up later. I defined evolution. It's an exploration and examination of biodiversity.

I Told you what you need.

Did we lose him? Do you hear him Anthony? I brought you in for a second. Let me stop his clock.

I don't hear anything. No. Okay.

One of the things with technology. Folks I stopped his clock there. I Will try to reach out to him. So We do know that with everybody home watching internet everywhere or on the internet everywhere some people have noticing.

Issues. Oh I'm sure there's problems within Up with a lot of the guys out there a lot of the internet companies and people.

Well, okay. We're gonna wait for him to come back in. Yeah, I will say, you know that it has been a thing with everyone working from home and binging Netflix. The the fact that there hasn't been more problems with the internet has actually Has been good.

I guess it shows that you know, some of the companies have really Done a good job. So I'll go back. This has nothing to do with the debate. So I'll bring this up for your sake Anthony until we wait for him to come in.

Jess says as a dental assistant myself, I'd love to work alongside a dentist who loves God. What a good day it'd be at work. So I I kind of described, you know before you sold your practice that most of your staff were believers and and Basically, every patient heard the gospel.

Yeah, that's a lot of fun. Would not make just feel jealous or anything, you know.

Yeah, it's one thing to find a dentist who's Christian which is wonderful to have but it's another you know. When you're allowed to openly speak about I know a lot of I know a number of Christian dentists and doctors who?

Keep it under their vest. They won't talk about it at all. So.

Justin Pierce wants to know if it's or says it would be awesome if I got saved. James Watkins is just surprised that I know what Netflix actually is. Yeah, I am too. Actually. Um, Jess says I couldn't imagine Jelly Belly, it's hard to find.

You know, so there was a question earlier. People were finding it quite amusing with his dog there. But I know Donald Jack somewhere asked the question. Here it is. He said what kind of dog do you have Patrick.

And just in case Patrick didn't see it He put kind and in all caps on a second one. Just to make sure he he saw okay here he comes back in. Cool, okay. Technical difficulties. Not a problem. So are you like on your phone now with a.

Yeah, I had to switch to my Phones hotspot and usually I play. I play video games on that. So it's pretty reliable.

Maybe even better than my house's internet connection. All right. Well right now it looks like I don't know. Black screen. We don't see your picture anymore, but.

Okay, well I need to set that up. I did. I only got to where I could actually hear you guys. Yes.

Now for folks who don't know you you did say, you know, you've been quarantined and you didn't get a haircut.

Well there I am in all my glory.

My son cut my hair. So if you want me to send to your place he can. Dude, you just need to shave it at this point. All right, my wife won't let me. I would go complete bald.

But Don Donald Jax would love it. All right, I stopped your clock. So we're gonna I'm gonna actually reset your time there Patrick, okay.

So you see my screen now. I'm not wait. Okay. Let me work on that a little bit more. Oh, I have to put this actually. Hit the share button oop and Select what I want to show to. Yeah.

All right, Anthony. I'll put there we go age. I will bring Patrick up there. Okay, so we're gonna start you over in time. Okay I do have the question still on screen. Donald Jax was asking what kind of dog do you have?

He highlighted the word kind for you. She's yeah, right.

He is a same species as a wolf But she is the Australian Shepherd Variety. All right, Mike. Through micro variation. Some someone actually wanted a hyper hypersensitive dog that uh barks at everything.

All right, you ready? You ready to start minutes? Yep. Okay, go.

Ken Ham’s Model Still Relies on Macroevolutionary Branching

Okay, so let's just look back at the little more Informative version. This is the actual slide Ken Ham used in the Debate with Bill Nye. I can't remember. Was that 2014 something like that and He's got one particularly interesting example here first it's Triceratops and he has got some putative evolutionary relationships.

Drawn up there. I think I think the blue lines that cut across all of the Kinds or the Reduction in varieties brought about by Noah's Flood and then obviously because they're triceratops and ceratopsians went extinct.

Their lines don't go much further after Noah's Flood. Interestingly enough of all of the Triceratopsian fossils we have we have Just this huge diversity that you can see on the right now. These aren't subspecies they aren't Just variations of a single Type or variety.

These are all separate species. They're all Reproductively isolated from one another. This is macro evolution therefore. Ken Ham and AIG's model for biodiversity Incorporates macro evolution whether they want to admit it or not.

Okay, and I think I've already Said those statements. I put them up there just to make an emphasis, but there they are again. Okay, so Let's shift shift the ball, let's hand the ball off to the Theistic evolutionists and just the agnostic biologists and look at all these varieties.

Okay, we have two mammals two archosaurs. That would be the non avian dinosaur and the bird. Okay, and Then three reptiles. That's the lizard on the right. The ceratopsian and the bird and then it looks like one amphibian.

Okay. Now the same sorts of traits that you use to group dog kind or Monkey kind or whatever else you want to call these together Can be derived you can derive you can extract other traits out of those Six that are there as I've already done in a little bit two of them are mammals.

Well, if you're gonna group all of the dog kind together based on their dog like traits, well, why can't you group Mammals together based on their mammal like traits and that's what one of the slides does later on.

It seemed like early on Andrew sort of equated Evolution with atheism. I have a few examples here of Evolutionist scientists that are Christians and Various denominations they still use evolution to make predictable predictions in their work.

One of them's Mary Schweitzer she's probably most familiar to a lot of young earth creationists or creationists because she's on the forefront of the soft tissue and fossils research. She has some very interesting quotes for creationists who misuse her work to make various claims.

Another is Francis Collins Director of the NIH. He's also Heavily involved. I'm not sure quite sure what his status is with the biologists organization. Once again he is Also an evolutionist. So there's no contradiction either.

You know, it's. I'm just trying to deflate the straw man of evolution equals Atheism because it's just not the case. Kenneth Miller is another one. Okay. Several of my friends I cross paths with on Facebook and social media.

Put this together this work this book together. It's dealing with geology, but there are some You know evolutionary overtones when you talk about the different sorts of animals and how? In different strata along the Grand Canyon walls.

That are explained by evolution rather than some Creation event. I think Ken Walgamoth is one. I think you're Andrew's friends with him on Facebook. I think I noticed the other day and Where we are, where are we time-wise?

Good lord. Hello. Yeah, no, I posted it up there. You have nine minutes 35 seconds. Sorry. Oh really? Okay. Sorry. You meant you heard me Benting.

If I have that long, let me just go on let's Let's. I've found that I saw a very curious post from Anthony and I guess I thought maybe I called you Andrew a few times. I apologize. The other day in the Facebook group where we first met he he wanted people to come look at the is-genus history movie.

Now this follows up with the diagram from AIG that I Kenham used in his debate with Bill and I several years back. There is a section where Dale Tackett spends a lot of time with A Todd Wood biologist.

He is a PhD biologist and he's sort of the resident Baraminologist which is the creationist version of Phylogenetic sys. There's a section where he and Dale spent a lot of time at the zoo looking at the various animals and And Fufilling the the evolutionary explanation for their biodiversity.

On the one hand I respect that because they are actually talking about or at least Todd Wood is actually talking about what? Evolution is supposed to address which is biodiversity and not the biochemical origin of cells or whether the sky is blue or whether evolution explains that or Why can't evolution make my car run better or anything like that?

He's sticking to the topic. So there are some very choice quotes from Todd Wood on his blog and some of them go until Fall along the lines of there is evidence for evolution gobs and gobs of it. It's not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion.

It's productive framework for lots and lots of biological research. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory and The people who who dismiss or foo-foo evolution Probably are just unacquainted with what it's actually supposed to Address or What the actual evidence is?

He finishes by saying an extremely successful scientific theory and then he he wraps up something which I also respect very much and and concluding that his rejection of evolution is a faith choice that he chooses to make when he put he has a Bible in his left hand and Campbell's biology textbook in his right hand.

He is making a faith choice to accept what the Bible says regardless of the evidence. And if every creation has said that I probably wouldn't spend as much time Being the way I am so Where are we at right now time-wise?

We're at six minutes. Okay, so once I've sort of gotten those hurdles out of the way, let's just talk about something that evolution addresses Specifically and is not you know is actual science and I'll show you some of the nuts and bolts of the science.

Oh, it's going to be a very rudimentary crash course and it sort of helps dispel some of the Straw men that I often hear so a lot of times when you talk about Say humans and non-human apes or Birds and non avian dinosaurs and avian dinosaurs.

You'll just hear constantly that that's just based on similarities. Biological biology is not assessed by a simple side-by-side comparison of things. We're concerned with using traits that say what an organism is and you know More so than what it does or what color it is or how much it weighs.

So we're using trick traits that have a genetic basis. So at the same time Blue eyes red hair. All of those traits that run in families obviously have a genetic basis. The same thing is true of having a backbone or having four limbs so we We don't just use side-by-side comparisons, we actually look at matrices involving several different species and several different traits and then we can derive Phylogenetic trees based on those assortment of traits.

For instance starting out here. It's my pointer. We're looking at vertebrae. Okay, the all of these animals are vertebrates sharks ray fin fish amphibians mammals reptiles. And then the next trait That we see is bony skeletons and one way we can know that bony skeletons is is a valid trait to proceed to next is just using simple logic like all vertebrates have bony scale have bony skeleton.