วีดีโอ

Irreducible complexity is such a frustratingly nonsensical biological argument. This bit is so triggering to the complexity scientist in me. Definitionally, no biological system can be *irreducibly* complex. We can always reduce biological systems down to its constituent parts. We have understood this at least as far back as the early 1800s. They just mean that it is complex. But they can’t leave it at that so they have to be dishonest so they add scare words

To be fair to Kent, that his understanding of recombination was wrong, was news to me. His understanding is the same as what I understood from high school biology (maybe that was the best we had then? 1976 for me, Kent is older than I am.). I'd love to have you on to explain recombination as I clearly don't understand it.

Awesome. Will come in handy . Thx

Why keep wasting your time with Kent?

Creation science is just theology and that phrasing should be repeated to their faces on every interaction. And every time they appeal to "the Bible"interrupt and correct then that they appeal to "their interpretation"of that particular collection of ancient literature.

Also, I have to say that one of my new favorite animals is the Mane Wolf. OMG, I love the way they look and I love that there is a canine that is primarily a fruit eater. FYI: My dog loves fruit. He works for apples, bananas, watermelon, bell peppers, etc. It's not the focus of his diet (v-dog is), but he will do tricks or hunt for fruit around the house. A lot of people don't realize how varied many dog's tastes can be. It's something you can cultivate too. My dog came to me as a very picky eater, not wiling to eat any fruit. All that's changed now and he enjoys a great variety. It's low calorie density, so something I can give him without worrying about weight gain. Nor worrying about bad stuff like salt, processed food, etc. It's a healthy thing for him. That's off topic. I just wanted to leave another comment. ;-) And maybe educate people on something about their pet dog carnivore.

I saw the pre-Kent debate on this channel. Then I went to Dr. Thompson's channel to watch the debate itself. And now here again for the debrief. SO FUN!!!! This video was educational too. Great conversation. Thank you.

Dr. Dan, your point about, "What Kent is doing is preaching and that's how you can see what he is doing makes sense" is perfect. That's exactly how it makes sense. You even raise the point about how Ken'ts one-liners are like chants. That statement really sparked an "ah ha" moment in me. I read a book that diagnosed what cults are and how they work. Having members do chants which disrupt thought is one of the tools that cults use. Kent doesn't have to win a debate in reality. He just has to keep his own people from thinking. He does it well, but I think that the work that you and the other scientists do to counter that is helpful for those people in the flock who are on the edge of breaking out of the cult.

This video is so fun! In order to try to guess where you are going with this, I have to go back and watch some of the old videos to remind myself of the main issue we are discussing. If I think of anything worth reporting, I'll come back and comment.

Wanna say I'm glad you did the trans women video ❤ thank you for standing up for justice

Love the video ❤

Around 1:20:00 What IS the difference between a bottle neck and a founder effect? That would be handy to know. Thank you for your work, I definitely will check out Dr. Thomson!

I think it's totally insensitive to talk about the "Main Wolf" all the time. Regular wolves have feelings too!

Do the number of trans people in the last decades correlate with the number of people who have these biological developments??

I really wish you wouldn't make unfounded sweeping generalizations. Your claim that antisemitism is the root conspiracy is not accurate. Humans are conspiracy factories. None of the YEC people I know are antisemitic. YEC did not originate with antisemitism.

Both the pre-debate conversation and this conversation are great information for preparing to debating creationists, as well as other nonsense like flat earth, anti-vax, etc. And I'm glad you and Chris will be tackling these topics.

Is 50 kids actually within the possible range for one couple? I mean, multiple births are really rare pre fertility drugs. Actually having 50 surviving children would seem to be so improbable as to be a non factor in any discussion.

It takes a very special kind of obstinacy to deny the very reasonable inference that an animal whose skeleton you find was a member of a population of similar organisms.

2:10 Even back when I was a Christian I got insulted by some of my classmates in regard to my faith (now I think it was not because I was a Christian but because I was irritating). Never in my life I had been attacked in such strange ways

You gotta wonder why Kent thinks that finding a fossil skeleton means that the animal died as he claims. He needs to be asked how does he know that that animal even lived, maybe it was only ever a skeleton.

That basement flerf story is actually funny af

Kent's admission that he did not know what a racoon-dog is revealed that he had never seen Pom Poko, which I suppose is not unexpected, but horrible in its own little way.

Next time, let's school Kent on the fish-kind.

"You don't know this fossil ever had kids!" No. but unless you think this specific creature was a special creation, then it WAS a kid of another creature of the same species.

Regarding "you can't know it had any children," around 1:24:00 ish. That is looking at it upside down. You CAN know it had parents.It's parents would look very much like it. Then there is another fossil that is very much like the 1st fossil. It is a descendant of the 1st. So to create a tree you need to look for ancestors, not children. Kent is gaslighting with his phrasing.

I’m sorry, but why the hell would anyone degrade themselves by debating Kent Hovid? Like whats the point? Literally no one gets anything out of it.

@51:00 you were talking about how he (Kent) can’t get into the minutiae of this subject. Isn’t that true of anyone that doesn’t have a thorough understanding of a subject? Only when a person has a comprehensive understanding of something, that they can delve into the weeds and examine/discuss the small details of it? That is surely true across every subject there is. Which further highlights the lack of curiosity and integrity of Kent’s mindset.

🤦🏻‍♂️ I think the key word phrasing here is “specific function” vs “function” . In this Epigenome age we are in we still have a lot to discover. Having an idea of the basic function of 80% of the genome overall in a general sense but not specifically is the key. The complexities of transcription and how methyl tags and other exterior events trigger biochemical processes that change that transcription process shows that there so many specific functions we cannot assign. His guess is as good as any geneticist’s. Knowing that areas have general functions is different than knowing the specific precise function of each genome area across all 3 billion base pairs. We have a lot to learn but we can at least now remove a lot of that “junk DNA” certainty that so many evolutionists claimed many decades ago.

Because they (creationists) don’t seem to do well with big numbers. They don’t realise that to have all of this genetic information preloaded into the original pair of Ark animals. Those ark animals genomes would be many, many times larger than what we actually observe today. Or am I wrong? Can someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Just want to throw my opinion on Donnie here. I have only experienced him through content like this and on Gutsick Gibbon and stuff so my experience might be lacking. He seemed to be more engage in the science stuff when I began watching content like this but has been peer pressure by those around him to be less honest and care less about the science and go to "if it disagrees with the Bible it's wrong". Not saying he himself doesn't deserve to be called out. He certainly does. I just feel like he like he gave up on trying to understand the science but I do think he knows how wrong Kent is on stuff science wise. Whether it's just for the money or a cognitive dissoance thing going on for why he still has him on and still view him as an expert and stuff I got no idea

I appreciate the info on antisemitism. When antisemitism is at its height rates in nearly a century we need a lot of that.

Thank you, and keep up the good work

RIP the snake that bit Kent.

Good Show! 😊👍

This time it was somewhat James' fault for constantly telling you you're off topic, when you actually were on topic.

I've been pretty deeply involved in creationism most of my life, and I've personally never heard any informed creationists making the argument that mutations happen purposefully--unless you include some of the stuff by old-earth creationists who want to try to co-opt Darwinism into the Bible. However I did author an article some years back entitled, "Evolution’s well-kept secret: Mutations are not random!". The fact is, most people in general, whether creationist or evolutionist, are unaware that mutations are non-random. And this fact poses a serious problem for evolution, since the genetic makeup of DNA does not match the probability distribution we'd expect to find after millions of years of undirected mutations happening.

Dr. Luskin accuses "evolutionists" of having hindered DNA research because of the junk DNA hypothesis. I don't see how. Thinking that it has no function does not mean that it is inert and uninteresting. Besides, I am not aware of any studies on DNA by the proponents of ID that prove functions in non coding dna. As always, they sit on the sidelines and then launch their accusations without ever getting their hands dirty.

I haven't pressed play yet but I'm going to guess Rob Carter because creationists always contradict themselves.

This is like waiting for Santa starting in August 😂.

I won't be surprised if he's debunked by himself at this point.

Anyone who has a doctorate in a relevant scientific field and still peddles young earth creationism is a LIAR!

As a christian What most dont realize is y.e.c. was from ellen white. Sda A cult 😂 It isnt a christian view. Never was

Hhmm I kinda see the probable argument here from you. And if I’m right. It will be easy to refute for Dr. Carter. The key word is “Assumption” But! Maybe I’m completely wrong. And I like how Dr. Dan obligates people to think. I love these back and forth scientific videos more than IMAX movies. 😂

Love your channel ❤

It's also occurred to me that that selection might not even need to be at the level of populations of individual organisms, but it could be at a cellular level instead...? Like, zygotes with certain mitochondrial mutations just die off before developing into embryos.

Such a tease 😤 I suspect this whole deal stems from a failure on Dr.Carter's part to apply a critical eye to his fellow creationist's work. He spoke glowingly of Sanford's treatment of Fisher's theorem. He spoke glowingly of Tompkin's analysis of chimp/human genomes. Now he speaks glowingly of Jeansen's attempt to understand mutation rates. These guys are his friends, they're good people, unlike dirty secularists, so how could they do bad work? Anyways, congrats on being promoted to "Dedicated Anti-Creationist". I wonder how much Dr. Carter appreciates how he didn't call you a 'professional' anti-creationist. That seems a conscious choice, not to play tit-for-tat like that. Maybe if you do well with your next video, you'll be promoted again!

It's religionS vs science: science converge, religionS diverge. All the Christian denominations won't ever converge into one because no one would dare questioning their basic principles.

I watched a lot of that debunkathon live it was great I learned so much about the mitochondria the power house of the cell 😂

Looking forward to the video

We need more live discussions and less "formal" debates. These tit for tat videos that both sides do is so inefficient for weeding out the rubbish.