Latest / Brett Keane and Eve Show / #Atheist @JacksonWheat VS #Creationist @ttor13 | Brett Keane Moderates

Transcript

#Atheist @JacksonWheat VS #Creationist @ttor13 | Brett Keane Moderates · Brett Keane and Eve Show

0:49
Ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention please?
0:57
The show. Starts in 10987654 321 Go
2:36
Music the
4:24
the music
5:23
the the
6:50
the the. Music Hello there everyone,
7:40
welcome to GOD TV Radio and welcome to this very special
7:45
live stream where you see that me and Jackson Wheat who
7:49
actually showed up which is fantastic.
7:52
I know that Brett and I have had experiences last couple years
7:56
with non believers as far as Christianity goes that say
8:00
they'll come and debate us and they'll take us on, but then
8:03
when we actually give them an invite to come on to a live show
8:06
and talk with us, they usually don't.
8:07
So Jackson Wheat is already getting brownie points and
8:11
making a good impression on us for just simply being here.
8:15
So thank you for coming, Jackson.
8:19
There you can unmute yourself if you want.
8:22
You're allowed to talk. Well, thank you for inviting me.
8:25
Sorry. Jackson.
8:28
Is a professional. Yes.
8:31
And Brett Keene here to basically be referee.
8:35
I think Jackson and I can have a interesting discussion without
8:39
Brett having to do much. But just in case things get a
8:43
little off track or too off track or a little weird, that's
8:46
what Brett's here for us to keep us in mind.
8:49
Yeah, I think everything's going to be fine.
8:52
It's been a good week. TTOR.
8:53
Got to see Deadpool Wolverine recently with my son.
8:58
Yeah, I've been hearing about, I've been hearing about that
9:00
movie and. For the first.
9:02
Time in and for the first time, and I don't even know how long
9:06
anymore, we are live on Quarter as well as live on Rumble.
9:10
So yay for more channels that honor freedom of speech and
9:16
we'll be able to say what we want and I have to worry about
9:19
being cut off. So with that being said, since
9:23
Jackson's here and since I think we're all ready, what I we're
9:26
going to do in tonight's live stream is that I am going to
9:30
talk with Jackson about some of the things he said in his live
9:35
stream response to one of my recent videos.
9:38
And I'll actually pull that up on screen here in a minute so
9:41
that people can know I'm not talking about something that
9:44
doesn't exist. And we're going to talk about
9:48
some of those things. And then we're going to talk
9:50
about one of the other videos of mine he talked about in that.
9:55
And we're also going to talk about the tweet of his I made a
9:59
response to that was part of my original video that started this
10:04
whole thing. So let me pull up Jackson
10:06
Wheat's YouTube channel first because context is key.
10:11
We talk about real things here, and we gotta have the reference
10:16
for you guys. OK, All right, so there we go.
10:24
Let me just screen share that so they know what we're talking
10:27
about. So it is this live stream in
10:33
particular called responding to truth, the Objective reality.
10:37
And that's the one where some of these things we're going to talk
10:41
about come from just so you guys have a reference for that.
10:46
And with that being said, the first thing I would actually
10:49
like to ask you about Jackson is one of the very first things you
10:52
said in that live stream. You and your friend, I don't
10:56
remember what his name is. I want to say Peter talked about
11:00
how people, I make videos about people like Paula Gia and Kent
11:05
Hovind because I'm chasing clout views and Subs.
11:09
Now. I find that kind of a weird
11:10
accusation because when you look at the substance of those
11:14
videos, as far as the Kent Hovind thing goes, it's mostly
11:17
the fact that he's a pedo enabler who literally was
11:20
running interference for one of his pedo friends and and a boy
11:24
that went missing. And of course, if anyone
11:26
followed that in the aftermath of those exposes, I did, the
11:30
friend of his he was running interference for got arrested
11:33
again for more of the same things.
11:37
So that's the what I was mainly talking about with Kent Hovind.
11:40
And as far as other people like Paula Gia, Professor Stick, or
11:45
Genetically modified Skeptic, or even just random atheist
11:49
evolutionist users on the Internet that make points that I
11:53
feel need to be responded to just as a general response, not
11:56
necessarily towards them. I feel like all my videos have a
12:00
point and they're not just chasing views and clout.
12:04
And I see this especially when I compare how my videos do on
12:07
YouTube with how they do on my alt tech channels like Rumble,
12:10
Bit Shoot, etcetera. And those same videos don't
12:13
exactly bring me views on other places.
12:15
So it seems like if I was chasing views and clout, I would
12:19
want to do something that was more guaranteed to do that
12:22
across the board, wouldn't you say?
12:25
So that was a comment made by Peter, not myself.
12:28
And if I remember correctly, which I do because I just
12:31
listened to the video, I said, well, I've been around for a
12:33
long time too, and I don't really have a lot of subscribers
12:36
either. You are approaching 10,000
12:40
though, so you're way. I mean, yeah, but I mean, I've
12:42
been at this for, what, eight years now?
12:44
And I, you know, I, I'm satisfied with the crowd that I
12:47
have. And I mean, I don't really
12:51
consider that in general. I mean, in some sense, we all do
12:55
this for clout, don't we? We're all on YouTube because we
12:57
want our voices heard, so. Well, there's a difference
13:01
between just wanting your voice to be heard.
13:03
Hi, Andrea Sagova, good to see you on Rumble.
13:06
There's a difference between wanting to have your voice be
13:09
heard versus doing something literally just to get clout,
13:13
which I know people that do that on the Internet.
13:16
Mario, the vigilant Christian, I don't know if you've ever heard
13:19
of him, but he was someone who literally did that.
13:22
And I had quite a bit to say about him back in the day.
13:25
I mean, that was like a few years ago.
13:27
And again, this wasn't a comment that I made right.
13:31
And I did say I've been around for a while too, and you know.
13:35
So since that wasn't a comment you made, and that was a comment
13:38
that your other guy made, maybe you can speak to this.
13:41
Generally, don't you think it's a little bit dismissive of
13:45
someone to say that they are simply making videos about
13:48
someone for clout and views, when in reality they could be
13:52
having a legitimate concern that they're making about those
13:55
people? Sure could be, which is why I
13:57
said, well, I've been around for a while too.
13:59
And you know, I've obviously I didn't just dismiss your video.
14:02
We spent an entire what, two hours looking at it so.
14:07
Yep, well you look at multiple videos because one of them
14:10
wasn't even related but. It was just something I saw as I
14:14
was because I, I, I hadn't looked at your channel before.
14:17
And so I was looking just to see what kind of stuff you typically
14:22
do. And so I came across that.
14:23
Yeah. But you're right, it wasn't
14:26
really relevant to the tweet that that spurred this whole
14:29
thing. So.
14:31
OK. Well, I feel like that's cleared
14:33
up, so let's move on to something you actually did say.
14:36
All right, you took offense or may not offense.
14:40
Maybe you took issue with me retweeting a stone toss comic
14:44
basically insinuating that I'm Nazi adjacent and that you
14:49
insinuate I'm a Holocaust denier because of this, because of the
14:52
simple fact that I retweeted a guy who you alleged was those
14:56
things. And so I'm just curious to know
14:59
where you feel like it's justified to insinuate that
15:03
about me simply because I I retweeted a guy's comic that I
15:08
may have found amusing or felt like made a good point.
15:11
Well first, you can retweet any comic anytime you want.
15:14
I mean it is Twitter after all. Second, again, my comment, well,
15:18
in my in this case, my comment was that's a red flag, which I
15:21
agree it is stone toss someone who has at the very best
15:27
downplayed the Holocaust and is has made very say hateful
15:35
comments and comics against gays, trans people.
15:40
Like I think it is a a red flag in general because I've seen his
15:45
comics on Twitter and but again, you're free to retweet whoever
15:50
you want. So I'm confused because when I
15:55
look at Stone Toss's comic history, much like South Park,
15:58
he seems to bag on just about everybody.
16:01
So I would say he's probably an equal opportunist in that
16:04
regard. Therefore, if I retweet him, it
16:07
doesn't mean that I agree with his troublesome views that you
16:11
have a problem with. Don't you think?
16:14
Not necessarily. I'd have to look at, well, for
16:17
instance, if he's bagging on like conservative, for instance,
16:21
is he bagging on a conservative because they're conservative or
16:24
because they're not conservative in the same way that he is or
16:27
liberal? If it's a liberal, you know, is
16:29
he bagging, is he bagging on liberals because they're not
16:30
quite as liberal as he is? I mean, we see this on both
16:33
sides of the aisle, don't we? If you, if someone's a, you
16:36
know, ultra leftist, right, and we see they're attacking Joe
16:39
Biden, are we assuming that they're a centrist all of a
16:43
sudden? No, The substance of their
16:46
critique probably has something to do with their political
16:48
position. But again, we'd have to take
16:52
this on a case by case basis, wouldn't we?
16:53
If we if we looked at a a series of stone toss comics, would we
16:57
be able to define to divine whether he is a, a leftist or a
17:01
centrist or on the right? You know, I'd be very curious to
17:05
go through a bunch and see that so.
17:08
Well, if I had to make a guess right now, based off what I've
17:11
seen, he's probably center right.
17:14
That's my guess, but needless to Needless to say, the reason I
17:18
share his comics sometimes is they're the ones that I actually
17:21
find amusing or interesting in some way.
17:24
It's not because I am behind any of those views.
17:28
Should be, well, good. I'm glad to hear it.
17:30
Yeah. Just wanted to clear that up.
17:33
OK, glad to hear. That my notes disappeared.
17:37
Now there was not the video that had your tweet in it that you
17:40
talked about next, but there was the one I did about.
17:44
About the bill. Congress passing the bill which
17:47
in there. They have they passed it yet or
17:49
is it still in deliberation? I'm not sure if it's passed the
17:54
Senate yet, I just know it. Passed here.
17:55
What's the name of the bill? It's HR.
17:58
I actually have it right here. Here it is.
18:01
Let's see, 6090. It is in.
18:06
It has passed the House. It has not passed the Senate
18:08
yet. Yep.
18:10
And I'm showing it on screen too, so that everyone knows what
18:13
we're talking about. OK, Now in your live stream,
18:17
what you said in response to, well not in response to it per
18:20
SE, but like your overall assessment of by video was that
18:25
you said that I believed it was OK to hate the Jews as a
18:32
collective due to the historical fact that the Jews killed Jesus.
18:37
You insinuated that because I pointed out in my video that
18:42
when you look at the bill, which we can see here on screen, the
18:45
bill basically just copies and pastes the definition of
18:49
anti-Semitism that comes from IRA and when you go to the
18:53
actual IRA and. They give you a list of examples
18:56
of anti-Semitism. Right, exactly.
18:58
And one of those? Examples is the claim that the
19:01
Jews killed Jesus. It's not actually.
19:04
That's not what it is. The example is discriminating
19:08
against Israelis or the country of Israel based on Yep, there it
19:13
is using the symbols and images associated with classic
19:16
anti-Semitism, EG the claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood
19:18
libel to characterize Israel or Israelis.
19:23
Now the issue, of course, is characterizing Israelis.
19:28
That's the problem I have with what you said is that says right
19:31
here claims of Jews killing Jesus is listed as an example of
19:36
classic anti-Semitism. Characterize Israel and
19:42
Israelis. It's not just we're just
19:45
thinking out, you know, historically, OK, the Pharisees
19:48
got Jesus killed. They're not saying you're not
19:51
allowed to do that. They're saying to characterize
19:54
Israel or Israelis. Can you both give me a favor?
20:00
The text is hard to see. Would you be able to summarize
20:03
what the bill is about for the audience and myself, please?
20:08
Well, the bill just adopts the IRA definition of anti-Semitism,
20:13
which is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.
20:18
And so the definition that is adopted is the one that's right
20:22
here, as far as I understand, which says anti-Semitism is a
20:27
certain perception of Jews which may be expressed as hatred
20:30
towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical
20:33
manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or
20:37
non Jewish individuals and or their property, toward Jewish
20:41
community institutions and religious facilities.
20:45
And then the document on the IRA website then gives a whole bunch
20:49
of contemporary examples of anti-Semitism and public life.
20:53
One of which you stated in your live stream is it's actually an
20:57
anti-Semitic claim was the idea that the Jews killed Jesus.
21:02
The problem I have with that and why I see it as a way to in the
21:05
future get Bibles banned is because when you look throughout
21:08
the New Testament, it's not just that the Bible says that the
21:12
Jews bought Jesus to Pontius Pilate and got Pilate to put
21:16
Jesus to death by essentially forming an angry mob and forcing
21:20
him to do it. There's other parts in the Bible
21:23
where people like Peter and Paul and the other apostles flat out
21:27
say to their Jewish listeners that they were talking to you
21:30
guys killed Jesus, the Jews killed Jesus.
21:33
So that claim does not come from the early church fathers or
21:37
anything after that that you mentioned in your live stream.
21:40
It literally goes back to the Bible documents that predate all
21:44
that. That's, and I'm not just the
21:46
Bible itself. You keep kind of doing this bait
21:48
and switch here. You're trying to make the issue
21:50
about the claim of Jews killing Jesus, which we all accept here.
21:54
That's fine. That's not the issue.
21:55
The issue is using that claim to characterize Israel and
22:01
Israelis. So using this against them in a
22:04
discriminatory manner. That's the issue here.
22:07
We're not talking about, I have no problem with the claim of the
22:10
Bible that the Pharisees got Jesus killed and that Peter told
22:13
them that. Fine by me.
22:16
But we're not just talking about that.
22:17
We're talking about using this to characterize current people.
22:21
That's the issue, OK, and. And then part of the problem too
22:25
I have is that by going down the road you did in your live
22:28
stream, you basically paint me up is on the anti-Semitic side
22:32
of things. And anyone who's followed me on
22:34
my alt tech presences for years knows that I'm not that guy.
22:37
As a matter of fact, I'm I'm the person who's been roasted on
22:40
gabbed and on Gab several times for saying simple things like
22:45
bigotry against Jews is wrong, just as all bigotry is.
22:48
And I've had people on Gab try to get me kicked off the
22:51
platform under the guise of being a Fed poster because I see
22:54
something like that. So I am one of those.
22:59
I am one of those people who does not endorse any kind of
23:02
bigotry. Bigotry against Jews, bigotry
23:04
against whites, Mexicans, blacks, whatever you want to
23:07
insert for skin colors. I'm against all that bigotry
23:11
because it's just stupid. When you get beyond, when you
23:14
get beyond the skin. We all have the same parts,
23:16
essentially. We have the same functions.
23:19
We have the same brains. We have the same blood, believe
23:23
it or not. For some people, believe it or
23:25
not, yeah. So their bigotry just, it's just
23:29
really stupid, especially when it's based on something like
23:31
skin color, which you can't control.
23:33
It's literally what you're born with.
23:37
So to bring it back around to what the title of the video was,
23:40
was there's no, there is no wedge being driven here to
23:47
divorce Bibles from daily life. That's just not a thing that's
23:50
happening and you can very clearly see that in the language
23:54
of the text there, literally to characterize Israel and
23:59
Israelis. Yes, but part of that text says
24:03
that the claim of Jews killing Jesus is an anti-Semitic claim,
24:08
and my concern is that since the Bible does teach it, at some
24:12
point in the future they can use that against.
24:15
Christians. To get the Bible banned because
24:18
it contains anti-Semitic claims. I mean containing invoking
24:23
history is not being anti-Semitic.
24:25
Using history to discriminate a group of people.
24:29
In that case Jews would be anti-Semitic though.
24:33
There's a difference there. If I say like, you know, here's
24:37
some event in history where I don't know, leftists did
24:41
something evil, right? And then say, I'm going to
24:44
discriminate against you if you are a leftist because someone
24:48
back then did something evil, well, that would be
24:51
discrimination. Now just saying, hey, left just
24:54
did something evil. That's not discrimination.
24:56
That's just invoking history. There's the difference there,
24:59
right? And I would agree with that
25:02
assessment, but the point of my video wasn't that.
25:04
It was the fact that people in the future who are very
25:08
malicious towards Christians can twist it to do that.
25:12
Because the Bible does say in multiple places that the Jews
25:16
killed Jesus. And if you get everyone to
25:19
accept the idea that the Jews killing Jesus is an anti-Semitic
25:24
claim, which is the way the document is worded, that the IRA
25:27
one that they just copied and pasted part of.
25:30
If they continue to go with IRA on this stuff in the future,
25:34
malicious actors who get into power could use that very law
25:39
and that very document to get the Bible ultimately banned on
25:43
the grounds of anti-Semitic speech.
25:45
It's something that can happen and that's my concern.
25:49
Not that it's going to happen next year or five years from
25:52
now, 10 years from now or heck, even if my rest of my life.
25:57
It's something that could happen because the groundwork has been
26:00
laid for and that was the point of my video and I don't think
26:04
you got. So I still don't see any
26:06
groundwork at all, and this is well in the future someone could
26:10
potentially use this in a particular way to do something I
26:13
I disagree with based on no evidence.
26:16
Like there just isn't any. You're just presenting this,
26:18
this statement, which is about discriminating against a group
26:21
of people. It's about using a, let's say a
26:24
factor history to discriminate against a group of people.
26:28
And you're saying, well, someone could just take the fact of
26:31
history and say, well, we have to what?
26:34
Eliminate documents that described said fact of history.
26:38
Like that's absurd. Like that, that just is absurd.
26:42
There's no evidence that's going to happen.
26:44
As you said, like there I I don't see any reason to think
26:47
that we're ever going to see that.
26:49
Maybe, I don't know, some evil atheist takes over in the future
26:52
and, you know, bans all the Bibles.
26:54
OK, maybe. But like, otherwise, I don't, I
26:57
don't see any reason to think that this would ever be a thing
26:59
that would happen. So I I you just didn't provide
27:02
any evidence for this, so I don't.
27:04
Well to give you some more context since you're not
27:07
familiar with most of my history on the Internet, you've just
27:10
seen a few videos. OK, when I've looked at the
27:14
Christians that have gone on to this anti-Semitic movement where
27:18
basically it's, you know, the Jews in Israel are behind all
27:22
the evils in the world and therefore it's OK to be
27:26
incredibly discriminatory towards them in a variety of
27:29
ways. I find that very disturbing when
27:32
I see Christians doing it because that same Bible that
27:35
teaches that the Jews killed Jesus also teaches that when
27:39
Jesus, when Peter spoke to them on the day of Pentecost, that
27:42
3000 of them repented of what they did and got right with God
27:47
and entered into that personal relationship with Jesus.
27:50
And then you have Paul in Romans 11 where he talks about how,
27:53
yeah, you know, the Jews did all these bad things, but they're
27:57
still God's chosen people. And even though they're the
27:59
enemies of the gospel now, they are the elect, you know, going
28:03
to be in the future Kingdom on account of the promises they
28:06
made toward their forefathers. So when you're a Bible believing
28:10
Christian and that's what your Bible says, in addition to, Oh
28:14
yeah, the Jews killed Jesus, it doesn't make any sense to
28:17
embrace the latter so hard that you think that all the Jews are
28:21
evil and that Israel's behind everything bad in the world and
28:25
ignore all the parts of your Bible that provide the other
28:28
half of that story. When I look at when I look at
28:32
stuff like that coming from Christians, it's like, geez,
28:36
guys, you have a book that gives you a lot more detail about how
28:39
you should think about that issue.
28:41
Yeah, a lot of Christians are falling into this.
28:44
I would say trap of anti-Semitism via Christian
28:48
nationalism. Sure.
28:50
I mean, anybody can be anti-Semitic, you know, for, you
28:52
know, right, Yeah, anybody, can. Anybody can be discriminatory,
28:56
so. OK, glad to get that out of the
29:01
way. I don't remember if your guest
29:07
said this or if you said this, but along that's along that same
29:11
vein, someone said I was carrying water for the Nazis.
29:15
Was that you or the other guy? I don't remember.
29:18
I didn't get that far. I didn't get that from watching
29:20
my own video, but yeah. But I think it's safe to say at
29:25
this point, probably not. Yeah, I definitely would not
29:29
have stood with the Nazis at all, especially when they used
29:33
religion for their own gains, just like a lot of people do.
29:36
Matter of fact, that's one of the things I hate about
29:39
Christian nationalism is that basically there's an ambition
29:43
there to do a lot of the same things that the globalists they
29:47
claim to be fighting against are wanting, which is basically A1
29:51
world system of government where those in power control and
29:56
regulate all activity and life under the sun on this planet.
30:00
It's very much a prison planet type system.
30:03
The difference is that in their little utopia, it's Christians
30:07
are the ones ruling over every part of the planet and basically
30:12
we have 1000 years of peace before Jesus comes back because
30:15
we're the ones in control of it for 1000 years.
30:18
And I find that so disturbing too, because it's another one of
30:20
those topics that goes right against what the Bible teaches
30:24
about end times, which teaches that the Christians are not
30:28
going to get in power and take control of the world's matter of
30:31
fact. They're going to be persecuted
30:32
and hunted down so badly that they're going to be on the verge
30:35
of extinction when Jesus comes back.
30:37
And it's when he comes back that he basically rescues the
30:41
remainder of his followers on earth at that time.
30:43
And then he overthrows the beast system and then 1000 years of
30:47
peace ensues. And then the Kingdom is
30:50
established after the final judgment.
30:52
So when you look at that part of the Bible too, you see that
30:57
Christian nationalists, at least, you know, Christians who
31:00
claim to be part of that movement, they are so off on
31:04
just what their own book says. And what makes it weirder is
31:06
that they like to talk about how much respect they have for the
31:11
Bible, how much they read it, how much they study it.
31:13
And yet they're missing such basic elementary things that
31:17
have been in the Bible ever since it was written and put
31:19
together, and they just can't see it.
31:24
OK. Now since I only got 15 minutes
31:30
into your live stream because I have a pretty busy life as a
31:34
full. Time.
31:35
Hey, that's totally fair. Is there anything in particular
31:39
regarding regarding my video about atheists that I had the
31:46
collection of guys I was responding to including you?
31:49
Is there anything in particular other than your tweet that you
31:53
you mentioned that you think the audience watching this should
31:55
hear? I don't even remember the other
31:59
tweets. OK.
32:01
Well, in that case, I'll just go ahead and.
32:03
When you said the 1st 15 minutes while we were doing the intro, I
32:08
went back and I listened to the 1st 15 minutes of my video.
32:13
OK, so I'm but I don't remember that the other ones were.
32:17
So then we'll, we'll talk about this then, because the whole
32:20
thing that even started this was your original tweet from July
32:24
7th, which was a month ago where you said trust the science is
32:28
shorthand for provisionally accept the I think you meant
32:31
accepting the consensus of experts.
32:34
You're not doing experiments because you're just a hack on
32:36
Twitter and you were saying it's in response to.
32:39
Wall Street Silver. Silver.
32:41
Yeah, it primarily does a lot of commentary on current events,
32:45
especially related to a lot of the coronavirus stuff that
32:50
happened the last four years. I every so often I'll just see
32:54
like a random tweet from someone, which is probably like,
32:59
I don't know, like rage bait or, or whatever.
33:01
And so I'll respond to it. And I know I shouldn't.
33:04
That's why I blocked Wendell for several months on Twitter.
33:07
And then I was weak and I unblocked him and here I go
33:10
again, you know? Right, so.
33:15
Before you guys continue, Warren, to the next topic of
33:20
TTOR, can you look at that verse in private chat?
33:23
And I'd like to know what you as well as Mr. Jackson's view on
33:27
that is. OK, so that's John 1018, King
33:32
James Version. No man taketh it from me, but I
33:36
lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and
33:39
I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received
33:42
of my father. This is Jesus talking in John
33:45
chapter 10, talking about how he has the authority to lay down
33:49
his own life and the power to take it back up again after he's
33:54
laid down his own life, which was obviously a foreshadowing of
33:58
his death and resurrection. So I'd say that Jesus, even
34:03
though he was ultimately killed by the Jews, it wasn't exactly
34:07
something he didn't see coming or was surprised by.
34:10
He knew it was coming. That's why he prayed to God the
34:13
Father in the garden of the case enemy.
34:16
Father, if it be your will, take this from my cup, but your will
34:19
be done. So Jesus was not looking forward
34:22
to that part, but he knew it was coming and he willingly allowed
34:26
himself to be killed by the Jews in the way that they got him put
34:30
to death because his mission was our salvation.
34:33
He was basically presenting himself as the perfect sinless
34:37
lamb for all sins, past, present and future, that we can all have
34:42
the opportunity to get redeemed, to get into a saving personal
34:46
relationship with God through him.
34:49
And so that's what Jesus is foreshadowing here in this
34:52
verse. Do you have a position on that
34:58
Jackson or a perception? Oh, my screen just froze.
35:06
Oh, wait, whoops, hold on. One second.
35:08
Let me refresh. No, I I don't think so.
35:11
That sounds fine to me. One give me one second.
35:15
You can just click the camera thing down below and then reset
35:19
it. OK.
35:19
He's going to try to refresh it. And then we got some.
35:24
It was the first line of the passage that I thought might
35:27
stir some up before you guys. All right, my camera just
35:31
freezes sometimes. I don't know why.
35:32
I apologize for that. It may all.
35:34
Right. You might want to set your
35:38
camera to 720 or 480 whenever in here because it limits it.
35:43
If you try playing your camera 1080, you're going to have those
35:47
moments in stuttering. OK.
35:50
Wait. It says it's on high def 720,
35:53
right? You said turn it down to 480
35:55
from 7:20. If you feel you're having issues
35:58
then it'll it won't be so much processor power.
36:02
It's like for some weird reason, like it randomly like in the
36:05
it'll be like maybe like in the middle of a stream, it'll just
36:09
do that like once and it won't do it.
36:11
Like I sometimes it does it more than once.
36:12
I have no idea. Like when my computer just
36:16
decide, you know what, no more screen.
36:18
Actually, you know, I don't know.
36:20
That's usually an Internet connection thing.
36:23
That's weird. Well, the good news is you've
36:25
been coming through great the whole time.
36:27
So OK, that was just a one time deal I think hopefully.
36:30
Yeah, here's open, you know, OK. So let me get back to what we
36:37
were talking about because it's important.
36:42
Wall Street silver. Yes, we were talking about that.
36:46
Now, I didn't get far enough into your live stream to see
36:50
what your response was to what I said, but.
36:53
I just reiterated my tweet basically.
36:56
I still stay behind it. So do you even know where I got
37:01
that line I said from? The one that's right here on
37:05
screen. The idea that the majority
37:08
opinion of the scientific and academic community should just
37:11
be believed because we're too stupid to do our own research or
37:14
think for ourself. Do you know where I got that
37:17
from? So you see how I said
37:19
provisionally accept? But do you know where I'm
37:23
getting what I said? From Do I know where your quote
37:25
came from? No, I don't.
37:27
OK, good. So we can actually go ahead and
37:30
do something educational that I think you'll find interesting
37:34
because I'm definitely not making that line up from the
37:37
clear blue sky. I just got to make this
37:40
application window. So about four years ago, Forbes
37:44
put out an article titled You Must not do Your Own Research
37:48
when it comes to Science. Now I'm going to read the first
37:52
three first two paragraphs and the last two paragraphs so you
37:56
can see where that part of my tweet comes from.
37:59
Not to your own research, Forbes.
38:03
It's hard. It's kind of hard for me to see,
38:05
right? OK.
38:06
All right, go ahead. Research both sides and make up
38:09
your own mind. It's simple, straightforward,
38:11
common sense advice. And when it comes to issues like
38:14
vaccinations and climate change and the novel coronavirus SARS
38:18
COV two, It can be dangerous, destructive, and even deadly.
38:21
The techniques that most of us use to navigate most of our
38:24
decisions in life, gathering information, evaluating it based
38:28
on what we know, and choosing a course of action can lead to
38:31
spectacular failures when it comes to a scientific matter.
38:35
The reason is simple. Most of us, even those of us who
38:38
are scientists ourselves, lack the relevant scientific
38:41
expertise needed to adequately evaluate that research on our
38:44
own. In our own fields, we are aware
38:48
of the full suit of data, of how those puzzle pieces fit
38:50
together, and what the frontiers of our knowledge is.
38:54
When laypersons espouse opinions on those matters, it's
38:56
immediately clear to us or the gaps in their understandings are
39:00
and where they've misled themselves and their reasoning.
39:02
When they take up the arguments of a contrarian scientist, we
39:05
recognize what they're overlooking, misinterpreting, or
39:08
omitting. Unless we start valuing the
39:10
actual expertise that legitimate experts have spent lifetimes
39:13
developing, doing our own research could lead to
39:16
immeasurable unnecessary suffering.
39:18
And then the last two paragraphs are a much better articulate.
39:22
Well, I'm just as good of an articulation of the issue.
39:25
There is no excuse, with all the wonderful scientists and science
39:29
communicators telling the truth about a whole slew of issues in
39:32
our world, for people to seek out only the opinions that
39:35
confirm their own biases. The best scientists in the
39:38
world, even the ones who hold contrarian beliefs of their own,
39:41
all agree that we should base our policies on the scientific
39:44
consensus that we've achieved. When that consensus changes,
39:48
evolves, or moves forward because we've learned more than
39:50
we previously knew, we should correct course to follow that
39:52
novel path. But that requires a kind of
39:55
transformation within yourself. It means that you need to be
39:59
humble and admit that you yourself lack the necessary
40:01
expertise to evaluate the science before you.
40:04
It means that you need to be brave enough to.
40:07
Turn to the consensus of scientific experts and ask
40:10
legitimately what we know at the present stage.
40:13
And it means you need to be open minded enough to understand that
40:16
your preconceptions are quite likely to be wrong and some,
40:19
many or possibly even all ways. If we listen to the science, we
40:24
can attempt to change the best path possible forward through
40:27
the greatest challenges facing modern society.
40:30
We can choose to ignore it, but if we do, the consequences will
40:33
only increase in severity. Now, those first two paragraphs
40:37
and those last two paragraphs of the article, basically the way
40:41
to sum it up and the way I've summed it up ever since I've
40:44
read it is that basically people like me, people like Brett
40:49
Keene, we're apparently just, we're so dumb.
40:53
We're so lacking in the necessary expertise to evaluate
40:57
anything that we're looking at that we need to trust what
41:00
experts say on those topics because doing our own research
41:05
just won't work. Because you see, we're lacking
41:08
the necessary expertise to evaluate what we're looking at.
41:11
Translation. We're too stupid to evaluate
41:14
what we're looking at. So we got to just trust what the
41:16
experts say. I don't think stupid, and I find
41:22
that to be problematic, the idea, because for a long time on
41:26
the Internet, I mean, I don't know where you were ten years
41:29
ago or so leading up to a few years ago, but for a long time
41:33
on the Internet, a lot of atheists that I encountered
41:36
always told me, Justin, if you would just do your own research
41:40
on the creation evolution debate, you realize that
41:43
evolution is true, that billions of years is true, and that
41:47
creationism is false. I was encouraged every step of
41:50
the way to look at that information for myself, but now
41:54
I'm being told by mainstream media that I don't have that
41:59
ability. I don't have the ability.
42:01
I think you. Misunderstand what I'm looking
42:02
at. I think you misunderstood.
42:04
Actually, I have a question first.
42:06
Are you still a young Earth creationist?
42:08
Yep. OK, then clearly the article is
42:10
correct. Now, I don't think that
42:12
stupidity is the right term, which which is your term, not
42:15
the article's term. At least from the part you read,
42:18
I don't think stupidity is the right term.
42:20
Ignorance is fine. I'm ignorant of a lot of things
42:23
and I have no problem saying that I am very ignorant of like
42:29
astronomy, you know, geology. These are fields I have no
42:32
expertise in whatsoever. I think they're interesting and
42:34
neat. I would never try to tell
42:37
someone who knows more than me about the subject who's been an
42:40
expert in it for a long time. No, you're wrong in biology.
42:44
However, in evolution, that is a thing.
42:46
I've I've studied for a long time, actually for the last
42:48
eight years I've been doing this channel.
42:50
And I mean, I just got my master's in zoology this past
42:54
December and I have read a lot of creationism.
42:59
RJ downard Nah, I don't know if RJ is watching have co-authored
43:04
a book. The rocks were there volume one.
43:05
We're working on volume to where we are going through dozens and
43:09
dozens and dozens of different arguments by younger
43:12
creationists just across the spectrum on everything from
43:15
transitional fossils to genetic entropy to what kinds are to
43:21
radiometric dating. And consistently, creationists
43:25
are wrong. And I they have, as this article
43:29
points out, they have overlooked a lot of details, a lot of data,
43:33
and they need to acknowledge when they may not have the whole
43:36
case. And I can name entire fields
43:38
that are virtually ignored by young Earth creationists like
43:42
biogeography and bio stratigraphy.
43:45
These are fields that I have seen like a handful of
43:49
creationists even attempt to deal with like.
43:52
And then when I talk about transitional fossils, like there
43:56
are some lines about like tectalic or Archaeopteryx or you
44:00
know, Lucy, the Australopithecus or what have you that are
44:04
inevitably wrong. You can do your own research,
44:08
but you do also you need to provisionally acknowledge what
44:12
the consensus is when you do said research.
44:15
And if you're coming to a conclusion that is wildly
44:17
different from what the consensus of experts is, and
44:19
this is really what my tweet was then like this article says,
44:25
maybe recognize that you don't have the full picture.
44:28
Like, maybe, you know, maybe maybe realize that, you know,
44:35
it's possible to overlook something.
44:37
In other words, they're the high priests of reality, and if you
44:40
believe something that contradicts what they say, then
44:42
you must be wrong somewhere. That's.
44:44
What I'm getting, So my SO, first of all, you misheard me
44:47
apparently. So my thesis was on, I looked at
44:51
iridescence in a particular species of beetle.
44:54
And so my research was, it was in part confirming or well,
44:59
testing, I should say, it was in part testing a study that had
45:02
been done several years ago, well, like a decade ago, as well
45:06
as expanding that research into other species which had not been
45:09
tested. So what I did not do as a, as a
45:13
person who is, you know, engaging in science, I didn't
45:17
just say, well, they must be right because they said it.
45:20
I said, OK, well, we're going to look at what they did.
45:23
We're going to reconfirm their methods or disconfirm them
45:25
because that happens all the time.
45:27
You can look at retractions and, you know, all sorts of stuff.
45:29
You can look at the major back and forwards that researchers
45:32
have, which become very recalcitrant.
45:34
It's quite funny actually. But my research was looking at,
45:37
OK, well, did this guy say, or this team really, did they look
45:41
at the right stuff? Are they correct in their
45:42
analysis? If so, OK, And does this
45:46
analysis extend to other Beatles?
45:48
Turns out the answer was yes. So I was able to reconfirm their
45:51
methods and extend that analysis.
45:54
I did not simply say, well, they said it, so it must be true.
46:00
Now, in general, in fields where I am not an expert, where I do
46:02
not have a lot of knowledge, I'm just going to defer to the
46:05
consensus. Now, there may be issues with
46:07
said consensus, but I'm going to say, well, provisionally, I'm
46:10
going to accept that consensus. And we all kind of do that.
46:16
We all do that for things we agree with, and we don't do that
46:18
for things we don't agree with. In general, what I just try to
46:22
do is I try to say what is known, what is not known.
46:26
What do the experts in this field say?
46:29
Do they agree? Do they not agree?
46:31
That's what I do. Like I have no expertise in
46:33
trying to debunk like, you know, the The Big Bang theory.
46:39
I don't know any of the math behind it.
46:42
I'm not an expert in it. But do I understand and know a
46:46
fair bit about studies and evolution?
46:49
Yeah. And as I already said, I can and
46:52
have tested, you know, some of these tests before.
46:56
So like, I'm perfectly happy with that.
47:01
Yeah, that's why I said provisional.
47:02
It's not believe whatever you're told always.
47:06
It's hear what they're saying, do your own research, go ahead,
47:10
but also be aware if you're coming to opposite conclusions
47:13
of what the consensus is that was here I am just restating my
47:16
tweet. So if you go against the
47:22
consensus, then obviously you're in error somewhere.
47:25
Is that what I'm getting from that?
47:27
Not necessarily. If you are an expert in a field
47:30
and you are, oh, I'll take a recent example, epigenetics.
47:33
So epigenetics is relatively sort of new.
47:37
It kind of depends on how you define it.
47:38
But the broad broadly epigenetics is relatively new.
47:42
It kind of came into its own in the 90s, the 1990s.
47:45
So epigenetics is sort of similar in some ways to the
47:49
earlier idea of like neo Lamarcism, which is why a lot of
47:52
people, a lot of biologists like shunned it.
47:54
They did not like it. But it turns out a bunch of
47:57
studies came out like more and more and more studies came out
48:00
that were peer reviewed by experts and they reconfirm these
48:04
tests or disconfirm them if it happened.
48:06
And it showed that, hey, actually epigenetic mechanisms
48:10
do happen. Methyl, you know, transfer
48:12
races. We do attach methyl groups to
48:15
histones. And in some cases that can be
48:17
transmitted across generations. So that is a thing that can
48:20
happen. Or it's not just that you can do
48:23
it with other types of of markers too.
48:26
But basically they did a whole bunch of different studies on
48:28
it. And we've been doing these
48:30
studies for like what, 3 decades now, almost somewhere around
48:34
there. And epigenetics is pretty
48:36
squarely within the modern than the modern field of biology.
48:41
I mean, like they took something that was an idea that nobody
48:45
really held seriously and they went through layers and layers
48:51
of of argumentation and data and not here we are.
48:55
We all accept epigenetics. Like it's not it's not a non
48:57
issue now. And that's how all things happen
49:01
in science. All right, Sorry, I.
49:06
Would you disagree with any of that or?
49:10
Well, I am not knowledgeable enough about that particular
49:13
topic to have an opinion. I mean, plate tectonics is
49:16
another example. Like you can look at any or, you
49:23
know, atomic theory or like relativity or whatever, like
49:26
these all these are all different fields that had
49:31
people, you know, come up with explanatory mechanisms for a
49:37
series of points of data. And then they submitted these to
49:41
their peers. They got it peer reviewed and
49:44
over years. I mean, in the case of
49:46
relativity, right, Einstein or or sorry, not Einstein.
49:49
Yeah. Was it Arthur Eddington, I think
49:51
was his name, the guy who tested that light does actually bend as
49:54
it goes around, as it goes through space.
49:57
The the planetary bodies of the gravity that affects the path of
50:00
light doesn't go straight as actually bent.
50:02
And that confirmed one of Einstein's postulates right
50:06
within relativity, at least I believe I'm, I'm not like I'm
50:09
not a physicist, but that's like Einstein made this prediction
50:13
about what should happen if relativity is true and turned
50:15
out that was true. And so that was a big point in
50:17
his favor. But of course, more and more
50:19
papers were published and more data has been accumulated and
50:23
now again we use relativity everyday we use GPS and that
50:27
relies on relativity. So like.
50:30
OK, Well, we have talked about only half of the source
50:35
information behind the tweet of mine that I made in response to
50:40
you. So now it's time for the other
50:42
half of that equation, and that would be.
50:45
I mean, I mean, I like did were you aware of like any of those,
50:52
any of the examples I gave or? I can go back later and look at
50:57
your examples and then look into it more.
51:00
I'm honest enough to admit when I don't know.
51:03
No, that's right. That's fine.
51:05
OK, but this one I do know about because it's the other half of
51:10
this information behind the tweet.
51:12
I. Made I don't think I'll be able
51:13
to access this one because I think I'm out of New York Times
51:15
articles. Well, here I'll send you the
51:18
archived version I'm. Oh, OK, cool.
51:21
Nice. So let me the article itself is
51:28
titled Don't Go down the Rabbit Hole.
51:31
Critical thinking, as we're taught to do it isn't helping in
51:33
the fight against misinformation came out February 18th, 2021.
51:40
And so I'm going to read there's a few paragraphs of importance
51:45
here that are most relevant to the issue.
51:47
I'm going to start here on paragraph 3.
51:52
Misinformation rides of the greased algorithmic rails of
51:55
powerful social media platforms and travels at velocities and in
51:59
volumes that make it nearly impossible to stop.
52:02
That alone makes information warfare and unfair fight for the
52:05
average Internet user. But Mr. Caulfield, who is expert
52:10
in digital literacy from Wazoo, apparently Wazoo Vancouver.
52:14
So that'll be that'll be Wazoo V.
52:16
There you go. Mr. Caulfield argues that the
52:20
deck is stacked even further against us, that the way we're
52:23
taught from a young age to evaluate and think critically
52:26
about information is fundamentally flawed and out of
52:29
step with the chaos of the Internet.
52:31
We're taught that in order to protect ourselves from bad
52:34
information, we need to deeply engage with the stuff that
52:36
washes up in front of us, Mr. Caulfield told me recently.
52:40
He suggested that the dominant mode of media literacy, if kids
52:43
get taught any at all, is that you'll get imperfect information
52:47
and then use reasoning and fix that somehow.
52:49
But in reality, that strategy can completely backfire.
52:52
In other words, resist the lure of rabbit holes, in part by
52:56
reimagining media literacy for the Internet hellscape we
52:59
occupied. It's often counterproductive to
53:02
engage directly of content from an unknown source, and people
53:05
can be LED astray by false information.
53:08
Influenced by the research of Sam Weinberg, a professor at
53:11
Stanford, and Sarah Mcgrew, an assistant professor at the
53:14
University of Maryland, Mr. Caulfield argued that the best
53:17
way to learn about a source of information is to leave it and
53:20
look elsewhere, a concept called lateral reading.
53:23
For instance, if imagine you were to visit Stormfront, a
53:28
white supremacist message board, to try to understand racist
53:31
claims in order to debunk them. Even if you see through the
53:34
horrible rhetoric, at the end of the day you gave that place
53:37
however many minutes of your time, Mr. Caulfield said.
53:40
Even with good intentions, you run the risk of misunderstanding
53:44
something because Stormfront users are way better at
53:47
propaganda than you. You won't get less racist
53:50
reading Stormfront critically, but you might be overloaded by
53:53
information and overwhelmed. Our current information crisis,
53:58
Mr. Caulfield argues, is an attention crisis.
54:01
The goal of disinformation is to capture the attention, and
54:04
critical thinking is deep attention, he wrote in 2018.
54:08
People learn to think critically by focusing on something and
54:10
contemplating it deeply to follow the information's logic
54:14
and the inconsistencies. The natural human mindset is a
54:18
liability and an attention economy.
54:20
It allows grifters, conspiracy theorists, trolls and savvy
54:23
attention hijackers to take advantage of us and steal our
54:27
focus. Whenever you give your attention
54:29
to a bad actor, you allow them to steal your attention from
54:32
better treatments of an issue and give them the opportunity to
54:35
warp your perspective, Mr. Caulfield wrote.
54:39
One way to combat this dynamic is to change how we teach media
54:43
literacy. Internet users need to learn
54:46
that our attention is a scarce commodity that is to be spent
54:49
wisely. In 2016, Mr. Caulfield met Mr.
54:52
Weinberg, who suggested modeling the process after the way
54:56
professional fact checkers assess information.
54:59
Mr. Caulfield refined the practice and the four simple
55:01
principles. One stop. 2 Investigate the
55:04
source. Three, Find better coverage. 4.
55:07
Trace claims, quotes and media to the original context, Also
55:11
otherwise known as SIFT. Mr. Caulfield walked me through
55:16
the process using an Instagram post from Robert F Kennedy
55:19
Junior, a prominent anti vaccine activist, falsely alleging a
55:23
link between the human papillomovirus vaccine and
55:26
cancer. If this is not a claim where I
55:29
have a depth of understanding, then I want to stop for a second
55:32
and before going further just investigate the source.
55:35
Mr. Caulfield said he copied Mr. Kennedy's name in the Instagram
55:39
post and popped it into Google. See how fast this is?
55:41
He told me as he counted the seconds out loud.
55:44
In 15 seconds he navigated to Wikipedia and scrolled through
55:48
the introductory section of the page, highlighting with his
55:51
cursor the last sentence which reads that Mister Kennedy is an
55:54
anti vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist.
55:58
Is Robert F Kennedy Junior the best unbiased source of
56:01
information about a vaccine? I'd argue no, and that's good
56:04
enough to know we probably should.
56:06
We should probably just move on, he said.
56:09
Now there's another paragraph down here that skips through.
56:14
Well, it elaborates more on that part of the part of consulting
56:16
what Wikipedia does. OK, here it is.
56:20
Here it is. The goal isn't to make political
56:24
judgements or talk students out of a particular point of view,
56:27
but to try to get them to understand the context of a
56:30
source of information and make decisions about its credibility.
56:33
The course is not precocious about, you know, precious about
56:37
over the academic sources either.
56:40
The students are confused when I tell them to try and trace
56:43
something down for quick Wikipedia search because they've
56:46
been told not to do it. She said.
56:48
Not for research papers, but if you're trying to find out if a
56:50
site is legitimate, or if somebody has a history as a
56:53
conspiracy theorist and you show them how to follow the page's
56:56
citation, it's quick and effective.
56:58
Which means it's more likely to be used as a journalist who can
57:02
be a bit of a snob about research methods.
57:04
It makes me anxious to type this advice.
57:06
Use Wikipedia for quick guidance.
57:08
Spend less time torturing yourself with complex primary
57:11
sources. A part of my brain hears this
57:13
and reflexively worries these methods could be exploited by
57:16
conspiracy theorists. But listening to Miss Ladan and
57:19
Mr. Coffield describe misinformation dynamics, it
57:22
seems that snobs like me have it backward now.
57:26
In the example that was in the previous section we read above,
57:29
and we see confirmed here in this three paragraph section I
57:32
just read from. The basic point of the article
57:36
is that we should not exercise critical thinking skills when it
57:41
comes to people who contradict the official narrative on
57:45
important things like vaccines and how to deal with responding
57:49
to a particular virus that we initially knew nothing about or
57:53
at least knew very little about as a collective society.
57:57
And So what you should do when evaluating a source of
58:00
information. The example was Robert F Kennedy
58:03
Junior. You should just go to Wikipedia
58:06
and see what it says about him. And if it says that he's bad,
58:09
well then in some way he's bad or unreliable, then you should
58:13
just ignore what he says. And this guy in these last three
58:17
paragraphs I read is me because I grew up learning from, well, I
58:22
shouldn't say learning from being told by teachers and
58:25
professors and all the academic authorities in my educational
58:29
history that Wikipedia is not a valid source of information
58:34
because. Of an identity.
58:35
Source nature because of the fact that entries can all be
58:39
edited on a whim, and even if it gets corrected over time, the
58:44
incorrect information that is on the article could be there long
58:47
enough to create blasting impressions on people.
58:51
And so because of that, I was always told Wikipedia should
58:54
just not be used for any kind of research into important topics.
58:58
Basically, unless it's looking at like a movie you're
59:01
interested or a book you're interested, you really shouldn't
59:04
use it for anything important. And yet we have mainstream media
59:08
telling us a few years ago that actually you should use
59:11
Wikipedia as a source of information on these kind of
59:16
important subjects, because you should use it to evaluate
59:19
whether or not someone's legitimate.
59:21
But the legitimacy of someone based on their Wikipedia page
59:25
suffers the same problem as any Wikipedia article.
59:28
It's an open source thing. Things can be changed.
59:31
People can lie by omission, which is something that Mark
59:34
Dice, the conservative content creator, has been experiencing
59:38
for years. Any time he tries to get his
59:41
Wikipedia page updated to reflect all the books that he's
59:44
done and the analytics of his channel as far as subscribers
59:48
and total video views, those edits are always removed by
59:51
whoever's controlling that page. So stuff like that and the open
59:56
source nature. Wikipedia has always made it an
59:59
unreliable source of information for important topics.
1:00:03
Now when I use Wikipedia, I generally use it for movies or
1:00:08
books if I want to know, like plot summaries but also.
1:00:12
I use it to look up information on topics regarding evolution
1:00:17
because when I've looked at evolution related articles or
1:00:22
science related articles on Wikipedia, almost always they've
1:00:26
reflected what the current consensus is on those topics.
1:00:30
And so I sometimes use that as a quick reference to see what the
1:00:36
mainstream opinion is on a scientific topic.
1:00:39
Of course, I also look at other sources as well just to see if
1:00:42
I'm getting widely different information or if there's like
1:00:46
information that's about it, that's just not in Wikipedia.
1:00:50
Then obviously I do that because I went to school for journalism
1:00:54
and I have a degree in that, and researching stuff is a lot of
1:00:59
what I studied and have been exercising on my channel over
1:01:03
the years. But generally, Wikipedia is not
1:01:08
reliable. I mean, that's what we've all
1:01:09
been taught our whole lives as far as using it as a source of
1:01:12
information on serious topics. And yet you have the New York
1:01:15
Times telling us that on important topics like whether or
1:01:19
not someone's opinion or thoughts or assessment of
1:01:24
current events or current events in the Pharmaceutical industry
1:01:29
are valid, Well, then just go see what Wikipedia says and
1:01:32
that's all you really need to do.
1:01:34
I have a problem with that based off of the open source nature of
1:01:38
Wikipedia and the fact that it can be edited to say really
1:01:41
anything you want, and if the editors won't let you correct
1:01:44
that information, then you're kind of a screwed.
1:01:47
Well, the Wikipedia, they got themselves in trouble and lost a
1:01:51
lot of credibility. Deal on what?
1:01:53
That Neil deGrasse Tyson issue you remember?
1:01:57
Yep, I remember that one. Do you remember that one?
1:01:59
Jackson Wheat. I have no idea what you're even
1:02:01
talking about, no. Well, if you want to give a
1:02:04
quick summary real quick. I mean, I really don't care
1:02:06
about Neil deGrasse Tyson. I think this article is broadly
1:02:08
like fine. Like in general, both of these
1:02:11
articles are kind of making the same point as that I also made,
1:02:15
which is like, I mean, they're right.
1:02:17
We're in an attention economy and the attention economy is who
1:02:21
can grab your attention. I mean, that's why we have a
1:02:24
million different like, ads that, you know, have like, you
1:02:28
know, women with their breasts out and everything like that so
1:02:31
they can grab your attention and pull you in.
1:02:32
That's why we have click bait. That's.
1:02:34
Yeah. I mean, that's click bait.
1:02:35
Yeah. But you know what I mean, Like,
1:02:37
we we have all this stuff. The Internet is based around an
1:02:40
attention economy. So like in general, when people
1:02:44
are again, not experts, these are kind of shorthands.
1:02:49
Like what are shorthand ways you as a normal, you know, nine to
1:02:53
five Joe can evaluate claims. Well, you can say, does it
1:02:59
currently? Is it with does it fall within
1:03:02
the consensus of experts or another, you know, way you can
1:03:08
sort of shorthand. This is well, what does
1:03:10
Wikipedia say? And I'll be honest with you.
1:03:12
Yes, I agree. Wikipedia was always hounded in
1:03:16
my in my academic career. I've kind of come around on it
1:03:21
and not least because I have also edited Wikipedia pages
1:03:23
myself and it's actually quite good.
1:03:26
And there are very, there are very few times I can think of
1:03:29
where I read something and went. You sure about that?
1:03:31
Like very, very few times. Like less than five.
1:03:35
But of course, Wikipedia is not the end all.
1:03:38
It's not the be all. As you said, it is open source.
1:03:40
So you shouldn't stop at Wikipedia ever.
1:03:43
No one should ever stop at Wikipedia.
1:03:45
Wikipedia should be your way. If you are diving into
1:03:48
something, it should be your springboard.
1:03:50
And I actually use it all the time for my videos.
1:03:52
I use it as a springboard. I'll look at the Wikipedia page
1:03:55
for well, let's see, we just did the leaf cutter ants tail.
1:03:57
So I went Wikipedia and I looked at the page for the leaf cutter
1:04:00
ants, the Tribetini. And this gave me a bunch of
1:04:04
different things I could look at.
1:04:05
And I scrolled down to the bottom where the references are,
1:04:08
and I looked at what their sources are.
1:04:10
And for me, that's really the material I want.
1:04:13
I want those technical sources at the bottom.
1:04:16
I don't want to just read the Wikipedia article.
1:04:19
But in general, most things I've seen on Wikipedia are really
1:04:24
fine. Like Wikipedia is so dry with
1:04:29
most of the facts that like, it's, it's almost boring.
1:04:32
It's, it's, it's, it's fine. Like, it gives decent overviews
1:04:35
of most stuff. And again, this article is just
1:04:38
kind of saying, has a shorthand look at Wikipedia.
1:04:42
But again, I feel like I'm just going in circles.
1:04:46
Yeah, if you're really wanting to deep dive on something and
1:04:49
you have time to deep dive into it, use Wikipedia as a
1:04:53
springboard. Sure, go to the article, but go
1:04:56
down to the bottom, see what the references are.
1:04:58
Then go read those references and see, and then you can
1:05:01
compare for yourself. What does it comport with the
1:05:03
Wikipedia article? Or does the Wikipedia article
1:05:04
say something, you know, diametrically opposed to what
1:05:08
the citation is for? That could happen.
1:05:11
But I mean, in general, both of these articles are just like, if
1:05:14
you're just a normal person and you're not an expert, here are
1:05:16
some rather easy like shorthands you can use.
1:05:20
And in general, OK, like, that's fine.
1:05:27
OK, I don't have a problem with that.
1:05:30
So let me throw a hypothetical at you.
1:05:35
So let's say that, you know, you said you agreed with the general
1:05:39
line of argumentation that the New York Times article laid out
1:05:42
as far as Wikipedia and how to use it for dealing with
1:05:46
important stuff like that. Well, hypothetically, let's say
1:05:50
is a springboard. Well, hypothetically, let's say
1:05:53
that you're someone who is called a conspiracy theorist
1:05:57
because you have a position regarding a current drug or a
1:06:03
current virus floating around that goes against main the
1:06:09
consensus opinion basically for lack of a better term.
1:06:13
And your Wikipedia page basically says that you're just
1:06:17
an anti this activist regarding that topic.
1:06:21
And then that's what's known about you on Wikipedia for a
1:06:24
couple years. And then you find out later on
1:06:28
you meaning like you and maybe society who's interested in that
1:06:31
topic or event or field, whoever finds out later on that that
1:06:35
conspiracy theorist ended up being right about everything he
1:06:39
said regarding that particular subject.
1:06:42
And yet his Wikipedia article says that he's just a crazy.
1:06:46
I don't know a single example in which that has ever been ever
1:06:49
happened. That's why I said hypothetical
1:06:50
if miss hypothetical. If if, Sir, if hypothetically
1:06:54
that were to happen, if that person, you know, turned out to
1:06:57
be right, then I would think that the public, the public
1:07:01
opinion on that person would shift and they, everyone would
1:07:04
be like, oh hey, he was right, you know, or she, whatever.
1:07:06
And then they go change the article.
1:07:09
Sure. I have no problem with updating
1:07:11
your, your beliefs about someone should new evidence come out.
1:07:15
There's nothing wrong with that. All right, let's expand the
1:07:17
hypothetical then. Let's say you've gotten to that
1:07:19
point you just talked about and you've made the point to the
1:07:22
Wikipedia editors of the article.
1:07:24
Hey, this guy turned out to be right.
1:07:26
Maybe we should take out the sentence that says he's a anti
1:07:29
crazy conspiracy theorist regarding this.
1:07:32
And then the editors in turn don't allow that to be taken
1:07:35
out. Well, if they were to do that,
1:07:38
if they would not change their position based on any evidence,
1:07:41
and that would be bad, that would reflect poorly on them,
1:07:44
and they would therefore or that would probably therefore reflect
1:07:46
poorly on the company they work for.
1:07:48
In this case, if it were Wikipedia, that would reflect.
1:07:51
And now, and this hypothetical example, by the way, is the Neil
1:07:55
deGrasse Tyson incident, because his Wikipedia page says that
1:07:59
he's an atheist, despite the fact that he's come out on video
1:08:02
multiple times in a variety of outlets saying that he's not an
1:08:05
atheist and explaining why. Yet every time someone tries to
1:08:09
edit that part out of his bio that he's an atheist, it keeps
1:08:13
getting put right back in by the editors.
1:08:16
Well, one that has absolutely nothing to do with the example
1:08:20
you gave. Actually, it says right here,
1:08:23
hold on. Actually, in the same interview,
1:08:26
Tyson Tyson or sorry with Big thing Tyson mentioned that he
1:08:32
added a Wikipedia's entry on him to include the fact that he is
1:08:35
an agnostic. Quote.
1:08:36
I'm constantly claimed by atheist.
1:08:38
I find this intriguing. In fact, on my wiki page, I
1:08:40
didn't create the wiki page. Others did.
1:08:41
I'm flattered that people cared enough about my life to
1:08:43
assemble. It says Neil deGrasse Tyson is
1:08:45
an atheist. I said, well, that's not really
1:08:46
true. Neil deGrasse Tyson is agnostic.
1:08:48
Went back Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist within a week.
1:08:51
What's up with that? All right, I have to worry a
1:08:53
little differently. I said, OK, Neil deGrasse Tyson
1:08:55
widely claimed by atheist is action agnostic.
1:08:57
I mean, that's right here. It's right there.
1:09:01
I can't agree to the claims by atheist that I'm one of the
1:09:04
community. I don't have the time, energy,
1:09:05
interest conducting myself that way.
1:09:07
I'm not trying to convert people.
1:09:08
I don't care. OK, what's the issue there?
1:09:12
Yep. So I'm just saying at one point
1:09:14
in the past that was the case the.
1:09:16
But he wasn't being prophetic I described.
1:09:19
I mean, he wasn't being a conspiracy theorist.
1:09:21
This had nothing to do with conspiracy theories.
1:09:24
But I was just, I was getting multiple principles explained to
1:09:28
you to see where you stood on them.
1:09:29
They weren't necessarily related to each other.
1:09:32
My issue here is quite is entirely with the people who
1:09:37
would not change it despite him saying that he didn't identify
1:09:41
with his community and like yeah they were in the wrong on that.
1:09:45
Yeah, and that's what I'm glad to hear because the way that
1:09:49
they've done that, I don't know if it says today that he's an
1:09:51
atheist or not, but I know at 1:00.
1:09:53
Point. It says he's agnostic.
1:09:55
Well, I'm glad that they kept that, but for a long time they
1:09:57
wouldn't allow that edit to be made.
1:10:00
But. I'm glad that they changed.
1:10:03
Yeah, I'm glad to hear that you're not a fan of Wikipedia
1:10:06
editors refusing to change things in light of new and true
1:10:09
information. I don't think anyone is.
1:10:11
I don't think anyone would defend the notion that people
1:10:13
shouldn't change something when new evidence comes forward.
1:10:16
I don't think anyone would defend that.
1:10:19
I just wish they'd do the same thing for Mark Dice and let him
1:10:21
update his channels analytics on his Wikipedia page.
1:10:25
I don't know who that is or the story behind that, but
1:10:27
regardless. So, you know, obviously I don't,
1:10:31
I mean, if something of a claim is wrong, it should be fixed.
1:10:33
You know, that's, I think that's just kind of generally true.
1:10:35
So. OK, I just checked in the
1:10:38
comments, looks like nothing new.
1:10:40
OK. OK.
1:10:42
Well, you've been going for an hour and 10 minutes.
1:10:49
I believe that. Well, I know that we initially
1:10:53
talked about you being me being on your channel as well.
1:10:57
So. Yeah, sure.
1:10:57
If you want to come on, that's fine with me.
1:11:00
Yeah. Is your availability generally
1:11:02
the same as what you're doing now?
1:11:04
Thursday, yeah, my yeah, Thursday is my stream day.
1:11:09
That's basically the best day. That's that I can like carve out
1:11:14
with my schedule right now because my schedule sucks and
1:11:19
you know, life just is what it is.
1:11:20
So, so yeah, seven, 7:00 PM Central on a Thursday is when I
1:11:28
have my my stream. And if you want to come on, I'd
1:11:31
be happy to have you. So you only stream on those days
1:11:34
you don't have any other availability.
1:11:40
Well, I mean, if you new like a particular day, really I can't
1:11:46
do like Monday, Tuesday or Saturday really.
1:11:50
But we could potentially work out a different day.
1:11:53
I mean, if you like, want to send me a message and say like,
1:11:55
hey, here are some dates that work for me.
1:11:56
I can look those over and and see my schedule and and see
1:11:59
which one of those might fit, if that if that works for you.
1:12:05
Yeah, I'll have to do that. Thursdays can work for me but
1:12:09
that early in the day just doesn't work for me because of
1:12:12
my job so. That's fair you.
1:12:14
Can relate. You can relate to that, I'm
1:12:15
sure. Yeah, I I totally understand.
1:12:19
I I do have a question like. Oh yeah, before you continue.
1:12:27
Oh shoot, go ahead. Sorry, this is the this is the
1:12:30
part of the show where you're actually allowed to ask me
1:12:32
stuff. This is not like grill Jackson
1:12:36
wheat the whole time kind of thing.
1:12:37
There's. Actual.
1:12:38
Conversation here. And that's fine with me.
1:12:40
I've been on shows, you know, in either way.
1:12:46
I guess my question is like, do you disagree with the, the
1:12:51
articles? I mean, I, I assume you do, but
1:12:54
like what specifically? Because my interpretation of
1:12:57
that is these are just shortcuts or shorthands if you don't have
1:13:03
the time to do the research. If you do have the time to do
1:13:06
the research, then do the research like that's that seems
1:13:10
to be my interpretation based on what we've read.
1:13:12
What are your thoughts on that? Well, in terms of the New York
1:13:16
Times article, my upbringing with what I was taught about
1:13:20
Wikipedia and what I know to be true about Wikipedia completely
1:13:24
contradicts their methodology. I don't think it should be
1:13:27
applied to anything at all, much less important subjects about
1:13:32
current events or current dissidents in politics or
1:13:35
science. And as far as the Forbes one,
1:13:39
that kind of contradicts what atheists have been telling me
1:13:41
for years because the evidence for evolution, I've been told is
1:13:46
so strong that even someone like me, if I did my own research,
1:13:50
could figure it out. So when I see people coming
1:13:53
along the mainstream media, you know, all these years later and
1:13:57
saying, oh, by the way, when it comes to stuff like this, you
1:14:02
don't have the expertise to properly evaluate your being
1:14:05
what you're seeing. So you just need to trust what
1:14:07
experts are saying. When I see that, I get really, I
1:14:13
get really bothered by that because any normal person
1:14:16
interprets that as you're too stupid to do your own research.
1:14:20
So therefore trust the experts. And I know you don't like the
1:14:23
use of the word stupid, but I'm simplifying it to a language
1:14:26
that just about everyone on the earth can understand.
1:14:29
I mean, like, like I said, you know, I don't disagree with that
1:14:33
in terms of like subjects that I'm not an expert in.
1:14:37
If I, you know, like am reading about history, for instance, I'm
1:14:40
just going to see what the consensus is.
1:14:43
Like, that's going to be what I look for or the consensus in
1:14:47
astronomy or, or chemistry or whatever.
1:14:51
And I'm just going to kind of go with that provisionally because
1:14:53
I really don't have the time in my day to, to investigate very
1:14:58
deeply every single claim I come across.
1:15:00
You know, some I can kind of, you know, there's a set of
1:15:02
claims where I can say like whether, you know, I'm very, you
1:15:06
know, I'm very sure that this is true or this is false.
1:15:08
And there's a larger set of things that I'm like, you know,
1:15:12
maybe that could be true, I guess.
1:15:14
But like we have to we all kind of have ways of like short
1:15:17
handing things. Like there are always people in
1:15:20
our lives who we look at. We go, yeah, most of what he
1:15:22
says is true. So I'm going to, you know, kind
1:15:24
of take him at face value. And there are people we say
1:15:27
like, you know, I don't trust single thing that comes out of
1:15:28
that guy's mouth. So, you know, like we all kind
1:15:31
of do that it like I don't really, I don't really broadly
1:15:36
have an issue with that. I mean, like we all we all just
1:15:38
kind of do it as part of human nature, I guess.
1:15:42
OK, Well if you so you keep referencing the fact that you
1:15:47
say atheists or evolutionists or whatever for a long time told
1:15:51
you to do your own research on evolution and you are still not
1:15:54
convinced that evolution is true, am I correct?
1:15:58
In this one, it's mostly the philosophical problems that come
1:16:02
from the evolution paradigm of history that you're using
1:16:06
science to try and justify, justify, Sorry, hit the wrong
1:16:12
button. Oh, you're fine.
1:16:15
Like I'm not a, I'm not a philosophic person, but like it
1:16:22
is my understanding of well, I guess, I suppose what do you
1:16:25
mean in particular? Like what?
1:16:26
What examples are you looking at?
1:16:29
Well, when you look at the evolution paradigm of history
1:16:33
that science is being used to support by evolutionists and
1:16:37
atheists, the paradigm basically says the evolution happened so
1:16:42
long ago that no beings with the ability to make records of what
1:16:47
they saw existed when it happened.
1:16:50
And the process takes so long even on a punctuated equilibrium
1:16:54
type time scale, that even that it takes too long to occur for
1:16:59
anybody to write it down as a historical occurrence.
1:17:03
Set up an experiment to verify that this is indeed a naturally
1:17:07
occurring phenomenon and not just, you know, some freak
1:17:10
accident. You know.
1:17:12
Oh, I don't buy that at all. Yeah, I don't.
1:17:13
I don't buy that. That line of argument.
1:17:15
Oh, my God, It did it again. Ha, ha.
1:17:17
OK. Go hear you whenever your camera
1:17:20
does that, by the way. Ha ha.
1:17:22
I figured out though, Brett, you were right when when you
1:17:25
mentioned the change your change in your settings.
1:17:27
If I just change it like back and forth, it fixes it.
1:17:30
So I guess it like refreshes the camera without me having to
1:17:32
leave. So that's cool.
1:17:33
I did not know that. Thank you.
1:17:34
I'm. Glad to help.
1:17:37
I will use that in future streams.
1:17:39
So yeah, for instance, like, well, let's think about what the
1:17:43
definition of the word evolution is, right?
1:17:44
In biology there, the population genetics way that we use that
1:17:50
term is a change in allelic frequencies in populations over
1:17:53
generations, right? That's how we use it in terms of
1:17:56
population genetics to measure evolution over generational time
1:17:59
scales, right? I'm sure you've come across that
1:18:03
definition before, OK. There's a lot of different
1:18:05
definitions of evolution. Sure, I mean.
1:18:07
Stellar, Chemical, Planetary. Well, OK, but none of those are
1:18:11
biology. Yeah.
1:18:13
Yeah. But within biology, yeah.
1:18:15
So, yeah, I don't know anything about stellar nuclear synthesis
1:18:18
or anything like that. So within biology, we have this
1:18:21
kind of central idea of changing allelic frequencies over
1:18:24
generations and that gives rise both to, you know, adaptations
1:18:28
as well as new species. So I do really hate when people
1:18:31
say because I, I, I, I've heard it, I've read it many times in
1:18:36
like Dawkins would say it in some of his older books.
1:18:39
He'd say things like, you know, like, Oh yeah, evolution, you
1:18:43
know, takes way too long for any one person to, to witness.
1:18:46
And so, yeah, you know, like, that's why we use the fossil
1:18:48
record. But like we do use the fossil
1:18:51
record for long time scales. But we can absolutely see
1:18:54
evolution on human time scales. And we've every step of
1:18:59
evolution that or every, yeah, every step of evolution, every
1:19:03
mechanism evolution. We can like witness on human
1:19:05
time scales. I mean, like the processes by
1:19:07
which new allelic variants arise, right?
1:19:10
Those are mutations and recombination.
1:19:12
That's how you get new alleles. We've, I mean, obviously we've
1:19:15
witnessed those. We've witnessed those every
1:19:17
single generation. There are countless experiments
1:19:21
on natural and sexual selection, genetic drift, gene flow.
1:19:24
We've witnessed the origin of new species in nature.
1:19:27
And my favorite example is Procambaris virginalis, the
1:19:30
marble crawfish. And that's the process of
1:19:34
evolution. Rich small is new alleles
1:19:38
undergoing selection or genetic drift.
1:19:41
It's not always selection. Zach Hancock would yell at me if
1:19:43
you heard me say that. But and then this leads to the
1:19:47
formation of new species. And when you look at evolution,
1:19:50
that's, that's just it, That's the process.
1:19:55
And so like each of these mechanisms has been witnessed,
1:19:58
right? And so I would take issue with
1:20:01
somebody like Dawkins saying evolution takes way too long for
1:20:04
anybody to see, you know, what happened way before anybody was
1:20:06
around. I would take issue with Dawkins
1:20:08
and I'm pretty sure I have in in him saying that so.
1:20:14
So it's it fair to say that you believe that changes within a
1:20:19
species or changes within a family, which is basically what
1:20:22
microevolution is over time, that always results in
1:20:26
macroevolution? So that's not what
1:20:29
microevolution is. So microevolution is
1:20:31
specifically changes within a species, so changes below the
1:20:33
low species, not within a family.
1:20:35
The family is a is a greater grouping of species, actually a
1:20:38
grouping of orders. So there's the reason that we
1:20:41
have these terms, micro and macroevolution.
1:20:43
I don't know if you're really familiar with the history of
1:20:46
evolutionary biology, but there was this big debate going on in
1:20:49
the 1919, twenties, 1930s, which basically led to the neo
1:20:53
Darwinian synthesis. And part of this big debate was
1:20:57
between the like you have the the Darwinists on the one hand
1:21:01
and then like the mutationists on the other.
1:21:04
So essentially you had people who would say all evolution from
1:21:07
like, you know, your new allele arises and you have gradual
1:21:11
mutations that add up successively over generations,
1:21:14
and eventually that's how you get new species.
1:21:16
So you have the Darwinist on one hand.
1:21:17
On the other hand, you have these people like the
1:21:19
mutationists, like Yuri Filipchenko, who is the guy who
1:21:21
coined both of those terms in 1927.
1:21:24
And he was a member of this camp, a member of this camp
1:21:27
where the argument was, yes, you could have small variations
1:21:32
within a species, but you could never have variations within a
1:21:34
species leading to another species.
1:21:37
The only way you could ever have a new species is if you had a
1:21:39
macromutational leap. So you had a big new change and
1:21:43
then that then if you have that within a population that leads,
1:21:46
that wins out against the other, the other variants.
1:21:52
And that's what leads to the formation of new species.
1:21:55
And that's why we have two different terms.
1:21:59
So we have micro and macro evolution to distinguish those
1:22:01
different types of processes. Now, while it is true that
1:22:05
macromutations can happen, they are by no means needed for new
1:22:09
species to arise. I mean, like we we know that now
1:22:13
Gould and Eldridge actually tried sort of reviving a bit of
1:22:17
that when they postulated punctuated equilibrium in the
1:22:19
1970s with their idea of like chromosomal inversions is what's
1:22:24
causing the formation of new species, which you really don't
1:22:26
need chromosomal inversions or or population of bottlenecks.
1:22:30
You don't need those for new species.
1:22:31
I mean, you can read like Jerry Coyne and his speciation
1:22:34
textbook and goes all through that, but you have those
1:22:38
processes, they're totally arbitrary.
1:22:40
Like the differences between these processes is totally
1:22:43
arbitrary. And it's based on a now long
1:22:45
extinct debate in evolution. So in the so the way that
1:22:49
Philipchenko defined macro evolution was genetic change at
1:22:52
or above the level of species. So the formation of new species
1:22:56
is macro evolution to Philipchenko.
1:22:59
That's that's how those words are defined historically.
1:23:02
What those species fall within the families that the original
1:23:05
species comes from. Well, a family is a totally
1:23:08
arbitrary designation. So are orders.
1:23:10
An order could be two species 3410.
1:23:14
These are totally arbitrary categories.
1:23:16
There's no or. Sorry, what did I say?
1:23:17
Orders. Genus.
1:23:18
I meant Genira. I don't know why I was saying
1:23:19
orders. My bad.
1:23:20
My apologies. Yeah.
1:23:22
So these Genira, there could be 10 different Genira within a
1:23:26
family and like, and then there could be 10 families within an
1:23:33
order or 15 or 20 or like these are all completely arbitrary.
1:23:37
There's, there's nothing in particular separating genera
1:23:40
from each other in the way that we have metrics for separating
1:23:43
species from each other. Does that make sense?
1:23:48
Yes, basically I'm understanding that changes within species is
1:23:53
something we do see happening. And I agree.
1:23:56
Of course, if you know creationist material, you know
1:23:58
they don't disagree with that either.
1:24:00
And. And also changes from one
1:24:02
species to another. Yeah, but that never goes beyond
1:24:05
the family change. So again, family is totally
1:24:09
arbitrary that that word doesn't mean anything.
1:24:11
It's just a designation that we humans came up with to define a
1:24:16
group like a group of of genera. Like that's it.
1:24:18
That's all that term means. If you want to look, you could
1:24:21
look at like literally any group if and creationist.
1:24:25
Try doing this. As I said, RJ and I wrote an
1:24:26
entire chapter on them trying to define kinds, and they don't
1:24:30
really use family. They use family sometimes, but
1:24:32
other times they lower it to a genus.
1:24:35
Other times they raise it to an order.
1:24:36
Sometimes they just say like, oh, an entire Kingdom is a is a
1:24:40
kind like the IT. The difference between them is
1:24:43
really depending on like, more of what they're personally
1:24:46
willing to allow. There's no metric for it.
1:24:49
It's not like there's a particular genetic metric or
1:24:51
morphological or fossil or whatever.
1:24:54
There just isn't any. Well, the reason why I say
1:24:57
families is because in the documentary Evolution Versus
1:25:02
God, one of the evolutionist professors who is being
1:25:06
interviewed by Ray Comfort, Ray Comfort kept using the word
1:25:09
kind. And so the evolutionist
1:25:10
professor said that basically the closest term they had for
1:25:14
that in our modern vernacular in terms of how we classify animals
1:25:18
was families. And I just.
1:25:20
No, no. No, it was.
1:25:23
I forget who the guy is, but it wasn't PZ Myers because.
1:25:25
I remember PZ was in that documentary, He was one of the
1:25:28
guys Ray talked to and Ray very dishonestly cut that a lot of
1:25:32
his answer out. He was like trying to make it
1:25:34
look like PZ couldn't answer his question but.
1:25:36
But it wasn't. It wasn't PZ though, it was A.
1:25:39
Different guy. Well, at any rate.
1:25:41
Yeah, I just assumed that he was right, because I never saw any
1:25:44
kind of dissent from creationists on that.
1:25:47
Well, if you look at you are. Oh sorry, I was going to ask
1:25:50
Ctr. Is that the one word PZ?
1:25:52
Meyer says he's a fish. I mean, we are fish, that one,
1:25:57
Yeah. Fish also doesn't really mean
1:25:58
anything, but that's another conversation anyway.
1:26:02
So the kind doesn't mean anything the same way that
1:26:06
family doesn't mean anything. These are just arbitrary terms
1:26:08
that we came, that, you know, we came up with because when you
1:26:12
look at organisms, they are nested hierarchically.
1:26:15
Species nested within a genus, Geneera, nest within a family,
1:26:19
families nested in order, and so on.
1:26:20
This goes all the way up the chain to domains, which again
1:26:23
are arbitrary constructs. These are just ways of
1:26:26
reflecting nested hierarchies, which a creationist, Carolus
1:26:30
Linnaeus came up with. And he could not explain why
1:26:34
these nested hierarchies existed.
1:26:36
And he wrote about this in in, in, I don't it was not system
1:26:41
and natural. It was one of his other works
1:26:42
later on, but he could not explain why it didn't stop it.
1:26:48
Like, it's not like the nested hierarchies went up to family
1:26:50
and then stopped. And then there was just no
1:26:52
nested hierarchy above that. Like they went all the way up to
1:26:54
Kingdom. And he was baffled by that.
1:26:56
Of course, Darwin came along later and and, you know, explain
1:27:00
that it's kind of ancestry. So basically Mac or micro
1:27:06
microevolution is you defined it as change within a species,
1:27:10
which is something we observe all the time.
1:27:13
The problem that creationists have pointed out traditionally
1:27:16
is that that's literally the only kind of evolution that
1:27:19
we've ever observed in terms of and.
1:27:22
That's not true. Though world and writing it
1:27:24
down. What do you mean by that?
1:27:25
I mean, I just said I gave you an example of a one species
1:27:27
becoming a new species. So Procamboris virginalis, the
1:27:30
marble crawfish, speciated from Procamboris phalax, the Slough
1:27:34
crawfish. And this happened in the 1990s.
1:27:35
I mean, there have been lots of examples of fruit.
1:27:37
There have been loads of experiments of fruit flies
1:27:39
dating back to at least the 60s. I think Theodosius Dobzanski
1:27:44
with his lanos a fruit flies like Drosophila.
1:27:49
I want to say pseudo obscura but I'm not positive.
1:27:53
At any rate, he had his fruit flies which you could subject
1:27:56
them to selection and then after several generations they could
1:27:59
no longer interbreed with each other.
1:28:00
And that's. I I.
1:28:02
Don't. I don't.
1:28:02
Think you understand? I don't think you're
1:28:04
understanding what I'm saying because I literally just granted
1:28:07
that new species can come from the existing species.
1:28:10
The problem is all the other types of evolution.
1:28:14
We don't see it in observational sense because they're historical
1:28:18
science in nature. It's something that takes so
1:28:21
long to occur, allegedly, that we can't just set up camp
1:28:24
somewhere, observe it happen, write it down, set up an
1:28:27
experiment to verify it. Basically, almost all of
1:28:30
evolution falls under the realm of historical science, where you
1:28:34
have to use it as a model to interpret what you're seeing in
1:28:37
the world. So here's where I, I yes and no.
1:28:40
So like a lot of evolution and we're just talking about biology
1:28:44
here. We're not talking about
1:28:45
astrochemistry and all that other stuff.
1:28:47
We're talking about just evolutionary biology.
1:28:49
So yes, in that sense, evolution is used as a framework by which
1:28:53
we understand and interpret, you know, like the stratigraphy of
1:28:58
certain fossils, right? But this also gives us the
1:29:01
ability to make specific predictions about what we should
1:29:03
find within the fossil record, right?
1:29:05
So if for instance, if this is like this goes back to like
1:29:09
Haldane and the oh, I don't even remember when you made that
1:29:13
comment. The like the pre Cambrian
1:29:15
rabbit, for instance, we can make predictions, right?
1:29:17
We can say, OK, if evolution's false, if our understanding of
1:29:20
how phylogeny and stratigraphy interact with each other or
1:29:24
corroborate each other. If that's wrong, then we should
1:29:28
be able to look for specific examples.
1:29:29
In that instance he gave the pre Cambrian rabbit.
1:29:32
Now I've you know, should there be rabbits in the pre Cambrian
1:29:38
or we should find fossils of rabbits or mammals or birds or
1:29:41
reptiles or literally like any, you know, almost any type of
1:29:46
animal in the pre Cambrian. If evolution is true, or sorry
1:29:49
if evolution isn't true, we should be able to find all these
1:29:51
things there. We don't.
1:29:53
Instead what we find is a gradual flowering out of
1:29:56
lineages. You find at the very latest pre
1:29:58
Cambrian you find very simple multicellular animals and then
1:30:02
as you crossover into the Cambrian you find crown
1:30:04
lineages, things like early arthropods, early chordates.
1:30:07
As you go a little bit higher you found the first jawed
1:30:11
vertebrates and then you go get higher, so on and so on.
1:30:14
You know first lobe finned and ray finned fish.
1:30:16
And that is a corroboration of those things corroborate each
1:30:19
other and those should give us a prediction or predictions.
1:30:22
That's how we found things like they are arthropodnathis micro
1:30:25
Raptor, Taktalix, spekamirma like these are all things that
1:30:29
were predict. Darwin predicted Archaeopteryx
1:30:32
in Origin of Species and it was found just two years later, and
1:30:35
he included it in later editions of Origin.
1:30:38
You you guys mind since we're getting towards the end.
1:30:41
Of the I'm sorry, I apologize. No, no, it's cool.
1:30:44
I enjoy, I'm enjoying listening to you and TTR, so that's cool.
1:30:48
There's there's no hate there. I was wondering though, since
1:30:51
we're getting towards the end of this, if I would be able to ask
1:30:54
a couple things to both of you. Sure.
1:30:59
So you brought up earlier about 5 minutes ago, the fruit flies.
1:31:03
Do you see a difference between natural evolution over that of
1:31:08
genetic splicing and modification done by scientists
1:31:11
in the lab? I mean, none of the examples I
1:31:16
mentioned involved genetic splicing.
1:31:18
Well, I I just went and looked it up.
1:31:21
I'm using kind of an AI search and it can also be showed on.
1:31:25
So, I mean, I'll give you the exact paper that I was talking
1:31:27
about. It was.
1:31:29
Hold on. Well, this this right here.
1:31:31
The information states that the fruit flies were modified and
1:31:35
genetically spliced. What's?
1:31:37
Not in the 1960s, they were not. That was way before we knew how
1:31:42
to do that. PTOR, do you understand the
1:31:46
difference between genetic modification over that of actual
1:31:50
natural evolution? Yeah, 1966 was when this come
1:31:53
out. We no one had even sequenced
1:31:55
genes yet, let alone knew how to splice them.
1:31:58
Hey Brad, can you put the link in the private chat so I can
1:32:01
look at it the one you're looking at?
1:32:03
Sure, I'll give you a bunch of different sources.
1:32:05
I'm going to give you the main search on it.
1:32:09
Let's see. The links can probably be the
1:32:11
size of Texas, but here you go. So I just gave right there.
1:32:16
That's the paper that I was referring to, spontaneous origin
1:32:19
of an incipient species in the Drosophila Paulo Storm complex.
1:32:22
So it was Paulo Storm, not so obscure, wrong keyword.
1:32:26
But that was Dobzanski and and Pavlovski 1966.
1:32:31
This is way way before anybody knows anything about genetic
1:32:38
splicing. So that's what Brett's referring
1:32:42
to is the first thing that comes up on Google.
1:32:45
He's asking if there's a difference that you can see
1:32:49
between that and fruit flies that, you know, go through the
1:32:54
natural evolution process. Is this alternative splicing?
1:32:57
Because that's not human induced.
1:32:59
That's just the thing your genes do.
1:33:02
Why? I definitely agree that there's
1:33:05
some experiments done, there's some natural experiments done,
1:33:09
but a lot of this with the fruit flies is genetic splicing and
1:33:13
modification. And that's why I'm asking you
1:33:15
both do you understand what the difference between nature
1:33:18
actually causing a change in human interference?
1:33:22
So none of the examples I gave have anything to do with
1:33:26
splicing with genetic splicing because again, like the example
1:33:29
of the crawfish was a polyploid event that resulted in new
1:33:34
species and then and the like I said 1966.
1:33:38
Let's wait before anybody knows anything about this in this
1:33:41
music. I'll take a look at this.
1:33:42
OK, so gene associated with by either removing from males and
1:33:48
females results, for example, males with for remove lose some
1:33:52
OK male specific course behaviors and gain some of those
1:33:55
behaviors. Yeah, OK, It's pretty common.
1:33:57
This is pretty common. I've seen research like this
1:33:59
before. Aha.
1:34:02
The dysfunction was also conserved across species.
1:34:05
OK, that's what CRISPR We can now add fruit to females and
1:34:09
other species, see whether the gene functions the same way.
1:34:14
OK, I mean like we can do phylogenies of genes, right?
1:34:18
We can do not just phylogenies of species, but phylogenies of
1:34:21
individual genes. And if all the genes in one
1:34:27
particular species look one way and then you have a one gene
1:34:29
that's completely different from everything else, then the
1:34:33
researchers going to be like a little bit off here.
1:34:37
And but in this, they're not talking about.
1:34:43
Yeah, these are not, they're not causing new species, at least
1:34:46
from what I can see. They are looking at the effects
1:34:49
of this gene in different species, which is totally fine.
1:34:53
I mean, they're really cool experiments with like moths
1:34:57
where you can take like the, the pheromone receptor away and
1:35:00
then, you know, they're not like interested in the normal or like
1:35:04
the males are not interested in the females anymore because the
1:35:06
females are like, here's my pheromones.
1:35:08
You know, why aren't you coming over here?
1:35:09
And the guys are like, I don't, I don't see anything.
1:35:10
I don't see anything. I mean, that kind of stuff
1:35:12
happens. And I think that's pretty cool.
1:35:15
Neuroethology is that field. It's actually really
1:35:17
interesting. But I mean like.
1:35:24
If you were to, you guys did say and give me approval to be able
1:35:29
to ask a few questions. But if you were to go back in
1:35:33
time and find a transitional fossil, how would you know the
1:35:38
difference between a creature that might have been deformed or
1:35:43
perhaps was born with a defection over that of something
1:35:47
that actually transitioned? Oh, so I mean, like we find
1:35:52
examples of deformation, the fossil record, right?
1:35:54
Like you can compare if you have multiple, if you have multiple
1:35:59
individuals of one species and one of them has like a club foot
1:36:02
or something like that, you can be like, oh, you know, this one
1:36:05
has a club foot. That's very unusual.
1:36:08
That's why there was a, you know, there was a debate over
1:36:10
like, are Homo floresiensis? Are they like, do they just
1:36:15
have, you know, a tiny head, a disorder or whatever?
1:36:20
Or in like it turns out, no, they they don't.
1:36:22
They're just a miniaturized species of human.
1:36:27
If something does is born defective or it has some kind of
1:36:32
deformity, would you consider that some kind of part evolution
1:36:36
in your view? Well, no, I mean don't.
1:36:41
I don't know what like deformities generally aren't.
1:36:45
For something to be important evolution, it would need to be
1:36:48
passed from one generation to another.
1:36:49
And it's going to be doing that because either by random chance,
1:36:53
because it provides essentially no benefit or harm to the
1:36:55
Organism, or it is being positively selected and that's
1:36:58
why it's being passed on. If it's a negative then I I
1:37:02
doubt it's going to be passed on if for very long.
1:37:04
I think what TTOR was trying to get at earlier is a majority of
1:37:08
Christians, at least in my perception in my opinion that
1:37:12
I've talked to, they agree that there are there are some small
1:37:16
observable things. What the problem is, is whenever
1:37:20
a scientist claims that a whale managed to come up on land, turn
1:37:24
into a dog like creature, run around for a couple million
1:37:28
years and send itself around back in the water.
1:37:31
These. That didn't.
1:37:32
Happen things that that normally you don't think that that
1:37:34
happened. No, that objectively did not
1:37:36
happen. No one's claiming that.
1:37:39
What do you think of that PTOR? Maybe not that particular ending
1:37:44
of that, but there is definitely a teaching in the evolutionary
1:37:49
paradigm of history that families of a particular kind
1:37:55
eventually become families of a completely different kind
1:37:59
through the macroevolution process over a really, really,
1:38:04
really, really long time. Sure.
1:38:06
And that's the part that we have a problem with, because that's
1:38:09
something that cannot be observed even in principle.
1:38:13
It can't be observed. And so we have to have faith
1:38:16
that our experts are telling us the truth about everything
1:38:20
related to that we have to have. Faith before you guys continue
1:38:24
because you said that that didn't happen.
1:38:27
I just provided a link that actually.
1:38:29
Showed that a whale became a dog and then became a whale again.
1:38:33
It came became a creature that looks a lot like a dog.
1:38:37
No. OK, so this.
1:38:37
Acting of the water well, I'm going to show the we're going to
1:38:40
show the imagery. As well they were never whales
1:38:43
1st and then became the dog like creature and then became whales
1:38:47
again. They are archaeodactyls first
1:38:50
that then later evolved into whales.
1:38:52
And how do we know that whales are archaeodactyls?
1:38:55
No, it claims that they originally started out in the
1:38:58
water like most creatures and went up on land.
1:39:01
But this particular. 4. 100 million.
1:39:04
It's one of the reasons why they claimed that the thing actually
1:39:07
has a hole on top of its head. No, no.
1:39:10
No, hold on. Those are all.
1:39:12
Those are all way, way different things.
1:39:13
You're conflating a whole lot of different things here.
1:39:15
OK, first of all, the when tetrapods is in the group of
1:39:18
amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, that group is descended
1:39:23
from a tectolic like thing 400 million years ago that was not
1:39:27
whale sized. It was like tectolics like no,
1:39:31
it's not very big, it's fairly small.
1:39:34
Then like 100 and or not 100, like 300 and gosh, 300 and like
1:39:41
50 million years later. Then you have the ancestors of
1:39:46
whales who then Yep. So right there, for instance, so
1:39:48
that bottom guy that they're down on the left, that's like
1:39:51
Endohyus or Pachycetus. Then the next guy to his right,
1:39:55
it's like Ambulosetus and you've got like Rhodosetus and then
1:39:58
like Dorodon or something. So there are lots of really good
1:40:01
ways that we know that whales are rhodactyls.
1:40:04
Genetics is like kind of the biggest one.
1:40:07
What's really cool is whales actually have particular.
1:40:12
Genes. So you have things that are
1:40:14
called orphan genes, which are restricted to particular
1:40:17
taxonomic groups. So whales actually share certain
1:40:20
orphan genes. You know, there are some orphan
1:40:22
genes that are within certain species.
1:40:24
Like our human species has a particular set of orphan genes.
1:40:27
There are some that we share with chimps, then there are some
1:40:30
we share with gorillas and so on.
1:40:32
Whales the same way there's some like some whales only have
1:40:35
within that one species, like a, you know, the killer whale, he's
1:40:38
only got certain orphan genes within that one species.
1:40:41
Then there are some orphan genes that are shared among all
1:40:43
toothed whales. There's a good picture of it.
1:40:46
And then there are some orphan genes that are shared between
1:40:50
whales and hippos to the exclusion of all other mammals.
1:40:54
Now we have to ask ourselves why?
1:40:57
Why would that be the case unless they share a more recent
1:41:01
common ancestor than they do with other artidactyls.
1:41:04
Now there of course there are orphan genes that all
1:41:05
artidactyls share and they're all orphan genes that all
1:41:08
mammals share. So like, but yeah, this is a
1:41:12
good picture. So you got like I can't?
1:41:14
Even well PTR, this is something that your buddy that you guys
1:41:17
were talking about earlier has actually talked about quite a
1:41:20
bit, Mr. Hovind. He actually shows video footage
1:41:24
of scientists actually showing them go from fish like creature
1:41:29
up onto land and then turning around and going back in the
1:41:32
water millions of years later and becoming. 350 million years
1:41:36
later, yeah. I mean, like we're talking about
1:41:38
enormous amounts of time later, Yeah, I mean.
1:41:41
Yeah, but you originally said this never happened.
1:41:44
You heard? The whale becoming a dog
1:41:46
becoming a whale never happened that no.
1:41:49
Like I said, a dog like creature, it looks like a dog.
1:41:52
I didn't say it was a dog though.
1:41:54
You said a whale became a dog became a whale.
1:41:56
That's what I'm objecting to. That's.
1:41:58
A dog like creature. I heard Brett say that too.
1:42:01
So, OK, so we're going to ignore the whale part first.
1:42:03
OK, whatever. Anyway, So yeah, there is a
1:42:05
massive difference between the oversimplification that you gave
1:42:08
and with the actual narrative, I guess I would say by biologist
1:42:11
or paleontologist is. So this little guy Packacetus,
1:42:16
which has a number of characteristics that it shares
1:42:18
exclusively with whales and nothing else on the planet, is
1:42:25
part of the lineage that gave rise to modern whales.
1:42:27
Like I don't, I don't really see what an issue with what the
1:42:29
issue with that is. If you don't see an issue with a
1:42:32
land creature going into the water and developing the ability
1:42:36
to actually live in the ocean after living on land for 300.
1:42:40
And 50 million years, you think Seals did that?
1:42:44
If the seals are out too long, they will dry up and they get
1:42:48
sick. So did seals develop the ability
1:42:51
to be amphibious? I think that we all, if any of
1:42:55
you in here has ever been fishing before, ladies and
1:42:57
gentlemen, you know that fish don't do too well on the outside
1:43:00
land. I mean, you didn't answer the
1:43:04
question. Did seals originate or descend
1:43:06
from an ancestor who was originally completely
1:43:08
terrestrial? Well, I am like TTOR and this.
1:43:12
I don't go along with the evolution on species changing
1:43:15
and all that. I don't believe that the whale
1:43:18
ever came up on land and turned into this.
1:43:21
I'm talking about what the claim is of science.
1:43:25
We I already gave several examples of species changing.
1:43:28
Hold on a minute, you you don't agree with species changing I.
1:43:31
Think. I don't believe that whales turn
1:43:33
into dogs. I don't think they're druid
1:43:35
creatures. I also agree whales didn't turn
1:43:37
into dogs, but nobody claims that.
1:43:40
Sure, but the principle behind it is what he's talking about.
1:43:44
So the principle behind this is that you have a set of
1:43:47
organisms, these semi semi aquatic ardeodactyls.
1:43:53
So these even who have mammals who have a unique set of
1:43:56
characteristics, Pachycetus and Endohyus and Amylocetus have a
1:44:00
set of characteristics that are exclusively unique to
1:44:03
ardeodactyls. For example, they have a unique
1:44:06
pulley astrogallus ankle bone. There are no other animals on
1:44:10
the planet that have this unique pulley astrogallus or pulley
1:44:13
shaped astrogallus ankle bone. Now it's really, really odd if
1:44:16
God decided, you know what I'm going to do today, I'm going to
1:44:19
make an animal that has some characteristics of whales like
1:44:21
the in the lucrum and the particular set of the dentition,
1:44:23
as well as a number of other characteristics of the skull
1:44:26
that it shares uniquely with, like basil of swords, as well as
1:44:28
a number of characteristics that it shares exclusively with
1:44:31
archaodactyls bar anything else. And they're just not related
1:44:35
like at all. Like that's just a coincidence.
1:44:37
Like, like really? Come on.
1:44:41
That looks kind of like a dog, doesn't it?
1:44:44
I'd I'd keep one of those around the house.
1:44:47
I'm just saying this has unique characteristics of ardeodactyls,
1:44:52
even with mammals, and unique characteristics of cetaceans.
1:44:59
And so we would do the exact same thing we do with literally
1:45:02
every other group of organisms. We would say hey, based on its
1:45:04
set of its suite of morphological characteristics,
1:45:07
it belongs in this particular group.
1:45:10
So I think to bring this show to a close, I would like to ask
1:45:14
something of Jackson Wheat before we get out of here.
1:45:18
Jackson, have you heard of Douglas Fukuyima's 1983 book
1:45:22
Evolution on Trial? Heard of it?
1:45:26
Yes. Basically, in a, for lack of a
1:45:28
better term, an apologetics book defending the truthfulness of
1:45:32
evolution in deep time and debunking creationism.
1:45:35
It's one of those books, sure, but in this book there was a
1:45:38
section where he actually made a prediction regarding the fossil
1:45:41
record. He said that if evolution was
1:45:44
true, then when you look at the fossil record you should see a
1:45:47
plethora and consistent line of transitional fossils going from
1:45:52
beginning to end. And that if creationism was
1:45:55
true, then what you should see is that the vast majority of
1:45:58
animals and animal groups should enter the fossil record fully
1:46:02
formed and fully developed without any evidence whatsoever
1:46:06
of an evolutionary ancestry. And then around the same time,
1:46:10
or maybe like a year or two later, the whole Cambrian
1:46:13
explosion thing became a driving force in the scientific
1:46:17
community. And the basic idea of the
1:46:20
Cambrian explosion is that we do see the vast majority of animals
1:46:24
and animal groups entering the fossil record fully formed,
1:46:28
fully developed, without any evidence of an evolutionary
1:46:31
ancestry. Richard Dawkins himself, in his
1:46:34
1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, commented on that and said,
1:46:37
yeah, that's what we see. I'm sure those creationists are
1:46:40
delighted, kind of like, in a sarcastic kind of way, knowing
1:46:44
Richard Dawkins. But the idea that evolution can
1:46:49
be true based off of the fossil record doesn't seem to be really
1:46:53
true. And the idea that there's no
1:46:56
creative power or creative predictions behind creationism,
1:47:00
it seems to be false as well, because an evolutionist
1:47:03
predicted what the fossil record would look like if creationism
1:47:06
was true, and evolutionists confirmed that the fossil record
1:47:10
does look like that. And that's why you see
1:47:13
transitional fossils being hailed and paraded from time to
1:47:16
time when people think they've found one, because there's
1:47:20
really not a whole lot of them. I'm so glad you brought up the
1:47:23
Cambrian. Let's dive right into it.
1:47:25
I actually happen to have read a lot of papers about the Cambria,
1:47:28
and I've read Darwin's Doubt, and I've read a bunch of other
1:47:29
works by Guntrebeckley and other young young Earth creationists
1:47:33
and intelligent design proponents on this thing.
1:47:34
And so I'm quite familiar with the arguments that they make.
1:47:37
Well, arguments is a strong word.
1:47:39
But anyway, actually when we do look at the camera explosion, we
1:47:42
do see not just one, but actually a number of different
1:47:45
radiations of organisms. So let's take one of my favorite
1:47:48
examples. So the arthropods, so the phylum
1:47:50
Arthropoda in its its crown members show up in this time
1:47:54
period. So they show up in the Cambrian,
1:47:56
but they don't all show up at once because they don't just
1:47:58
come out of nowhere. At the start of the Cambrian.
1:48:00
One of the groups you see is this group called Isoxeda.
1:48:04
I can put that here on our side chat.
1:48:05
You're free to look that up. So Isoxeda is one of the groups
1:48:08
of either very derived stem arthropods or it's a very basal
1:48:13
crown arthropod. And these are one of the first,
1:48:16
these are actually, yeah, the first body fossils that you find
1:48:19
in the early Cambrian. And then a bit later you find
1:48:23
other groups of of of basal crown orthopods, things like
1:48:29
fushi and huyads. You find trilobites coming in at
1:48:32
the middle early Cambrian. And then you have a
1:48:34
diversification of the the ardeopodans.
1:48:38
So the group that's it's a group of trilobite like critters, but
1:48:42
they're not trilobites. You have them radiate a bit
1:48:46
later in the Cambrian and then you have the diversification of
1:48:49
crustaceans kind of towards the tail end of the Cambrian.
1:48:53
And then you get that really a big diversification starting in
1:48:56
the old division, which is part of Gobi the great, great or
1:49:01
division diversification, I promise I can speak.
1:49:03
And then from there you have diversification of those groups
1:49:06
and you eventually get in the either the insular or the start
1:49:09
of the Devonian, you get stem hexapods and then you get crown
1:49:14
hexapods a little bit later in the well, I should say, yeah, a
1:49:17
bit later in the late Devonian. And then you get the
1:49:20
diversification of insects. So like that whole thing seems
1:49:24
really, really evolutionary. That doesn't seem to me.
1:49:27
And if let's go before you said it, start at the Cameron.
1:49:30
Well, if you actually, if you go right before the the the
1:49:34
Cameron, if you go to the Edie Akron and you again see the step
1:49:37
wise transitions. You see at the start of the
1:49:39
Ediacrine we have things like the rangiomorphs, which are
1:49:42
these frond like guys which are considered eumetozoans are
1:49:47
considered stemumetozoans. We have sponges and then we have
1:49:50
nidarians. A little bit later on we have
1:49:52
stem bilaterians. And then after we have stem
1:49:54
bilaterians, we have crowned bilaterians right before we get
1:49:57
to the end of the Ediacrine. And then right after we have the
1:49:59
crowned bilaterians, we have a big flowering outward of crowned
1:50:03
bilaterians in the Cambrian. And we can go back further.
1:50:07
Like you have primitive eukaryotes as far back as 2
1:50:11
billion years ago. And like, I'm not really sure
1:50:15
what the issue is. We have like we believe that we
1:50:19
that our ancestors existed during the time of the
1:50:22
dinosaurs. Yeah, absolutely.
1:50:25
I mean like that doesn't have anything to do with what I just
1:50:26
said. But yeah, I like in this example
1:50:28
that I just gave or that you you brought up, we have stepwise
1:50:33
like acquisition of characters leading up to the Cambria and
1:50:36
then we have the stepwise acquisition of characters during
1:50:38
the Cambrian. So in our own lineage, the
1:50:40
chordates, we have milk and mingia and we have picaya and we
1:50:43
have the vitulicolians and we have like all these like
1:50:47
stemichinoderms and things like that that are all appearing in
1:50:49
the Cambrian. We have the radiation of those
1:50:52
groups. And then once we get to the old
1:50:53
division for our chordates, we have early jawless fish and then
1:50:57
we have jaws developing in the solarium.
1:50:59
Then we have the split between ray and loebfin fish like you
1:51:03
say, we don't really see, you know, we all we see is things,
1:51:07
you know, just popping up fully formed, like.
1:51:10
Well, we also what? Are you relying on like when?
1:51:13
You say that that there's many, many species out there that have
1:51:16
never went through any kind of transition, that they're still
1:51:20
the same looking that they've always been.
1:51:22
So that's not true, but also that I would like a response
1:51:25
from TTOR before I get to that. So like.
1:51:29
I actually have an entire video on that with the imagery and the
1:51:33
the video footage of it, but that's cool.
1:51:36
Go ahead. So.
1:51:37
I'm happy to get into specifics of things like the horseshoe
1:51:39
crabs if you want, because that's one that I've had to
1:51:42
multiple arguments. You go on.
1:51:43
But anyway, go ahead. So, as in the greatest of
1:51:46
ironies, here's the Wikipedia article.
1:51:48
Go ahead an. Explosion it says the Cambrian
1:51:51
explosion, also known as Cambrian radiation or Cambrian
1:51:55
diversification, is an interval's time approximately
1:51:58
538.8 million years ago in the Cambrian period of the early
1:52:03
paleozoic, when a sudden radiation of complex life
1:52:06
occurred and practically all major animal phyla start
1:52:09
appearing in the fossil record and lasted for about 13 to
1:52:12
25,000,000 years resulted in the divergent of most metazoan
1:52:17
phyla. The event was accompanied by
1:52:19
major diverse other groups of organisms as well, so 13 to
1:52:24
25,000,000 years is but. Do you know what?
1:52:26
That's a long time. So do you.
1:52:28
Know what? That's a reference.
1:52:29
Quick, I think I'd like to finish my sentence first before
1:52:33
I ask. 13 to 25,000,000 years is a long time, but in the
1:52:38
evolutionary time scale it really isn't all that long.
1:52:42
So if you think about it for a little bit, you realize that the
1:52:45
Cambrian explosion conceptually does teach that practically all
1:52:50
major animals and animal groups appeared in the fossil record in
1:52:55
a really quick dissection without really any prior
1:52:58
evolutionary. History.
1:52:58
Do you know what that time period is referencing?
1:53:02
I'll give you a hint. It's not the entire Cambrian
1:53:06
radiation event. So that time period, 13 to
1:53:11
25,000,000 years is based on the lower boundary of the Atabanian
1:53:14
layer. And what it is referencing is
1:53:16
the period of the greatest growth of species
1:53:19
diversification, not the whole species diversification.
1:53:22
Actually, there's a really good paper on that.
1:53:24
I believe it's Zarav Liv and Wood.
1:53:27
Zarav, Liv and Wood, I think it's 2018.
1:53:30
That could be, yes. The two phases of the camera
1:53:31
explosion. Here we go.
1:53:33
This paper has a really good figure.
1:53:37
Yeah, here we go. Well, this is one of them.
1:53:39
This is not the only one. Can I screen share for a moment?
1:53:45
Please. Sure, just give me one second.
1:53:47
Sure all. About diversity of thought here,
1:53:51
let's see. Wait, you have to actually do
1:53:57
the screen share? Oh, OK, I got you.
1:54:02
Share screen. OK, I gotcha.
1:54:04
And then you choose your screen sharing option and then I put it
1:54:07
on. OK, I gotcha.
1:54:10
OK, so you see if you pull the well that's not you, that's me,
1:54:15
I'm a fool. OK, so here we go.
1:54:18
If you look, if you look at this section right here, so as you
1:54:22
can see these are bilaterian. So these are the Organism, the
1:54:25
animals that are bilaterally symmetric.
1:54:27
Now the period of 1325 million years depending on the base of
1:54:30
the Activantian that's referring to basically this part right
1:54:33
here where you have the greatest like increase.
1:54:37
It is not referring to the entire thing.
1:54:39
In fact, you can see you have stem groups prior to that and
1:54:42
then you have crown groups appearing about here in the
1:54:45
early Cambrian and then you have a very large radiation that
1:54:49
occurs following the inception of these crown groups.
1:54:53
So it's not the Origin, the Cambrian.
1:54:55
So and Steven Meyer did this exact same thing in Darwin's
1:54:59
doubt. He tried playing up this, the
1:55:01
Cameron explosion as the entirety of the event was this
1:55:05
13 or so million years old. He even tried to shorten it down
1:55:09
to like 10 based on a bow ring paper from the 1990s.
1:55:13
But basically this time period here, that's a very nice picture
1:55:16
of I think it's like Jeremiah or Eomiah, one of those.
1:55:20
It's just this part right here. It's just the part of the
1:55:22
greatest diversification is not the whole thing by any stretch
1:55:26
of the imagination. And so when you're reading about
1:55:29
the Cambrian, like, who are you, like relying on typically, who
1:55:33
do you read? The Cambrian explosion analysis
1:55:39
I got from Richard Dawkins. OK, so as in like that 1986
1:55:44
book, the book from thirty, 30-40 years ago, how long ago
1:55:50
was that? 86 was almost.
1:55:54
This is a little while back, yeah.
1:55:55
Information's changed since then.
1:55:57
Has it? Exactly right, I agree.
1:55:59
So 38, yeah. So 38,000,000 years ago was
1:56:04
1986. And so the information in that
1:56:09
book is not, you know, the most up to date.
1:56:13
If you want more recent doc and stuff, I'd recommend The
1:56:15
Ancestor's Tale, which he published the 2nd edition in
1:56:19
2016. And I'd recommend it because
1:56:21
I've actually been going through it chapter by chapter.
1:56:24
I'm not covering the Cambrian explosion again, because I've
1:56:27
done that in so many videos. I'm not doing it again.
1:56:30
But if you want, you could look at that.
1:56:33
The Velvet Worm's Tale is about the camera explosion.
1:56:37
Anyway, the point of the matter is, it's not like that's not the
1:56:41
whole thing. You have events before and
1:56:43
events after, and they don't just pop out of nowhere.
1:56:47
Like, do you see what I'm saying?
1:56:49
I get what you're explaining. OK.
1:56:52
And with that we are at that time where I need to end the
1:56:56
show. You can expand on it more in
1:56:58
like on your channel when I show up later.
1:57:00
On. That's fine if you want.
1:57:02
That's fine, but we are at that time limit, so I'm going to
1:57:05
close this out here. Thank you guys.
1:57:07
Those of you who are watching on Rumble, it's been hovering
1:57:10
around 9:00 to 10:00 viewers throughout most of the stream.
1:57:13
So congratulations on all of you for actually sticking around.
1:57:17
And also if you're watching this after the fact, after we've gone
1:57:21
live and you're watching the replay on like quarter on bit
1:57:24
shoot or on Rumble, I hope you guys appreciated the stream.
1:57:28
And with that, I bid all of you farewell and I will see you on
1:57:33
the next live stream that I do. And you guys, Brett and Jackson,
1:57:37
are welcome to make any kind of outro greetings you want and say
1:57:43
goodbye, basically. Thanks for having me on, I
1:57:44
appreciate it. Well, I really enjoyed myself
1:57:48
TTOR. It was really nice meeting you,
1:57:50
Mr. Jackson. It's good to just sit back and
1:57:53
have a good conversation without things getting all wild and
1:57:56
ridiculous. How I was practically not even
1:57:58
needed. You guys did well.
1:58:01
Yeah. Thanks again.
1:58:02
Thanks for having me. On You're welcome.
1:58:04
And with that, this is the end of an amazing interfaith
1:58:07
dialogue. None.