Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Sarcasm there.
And it's an invention that was invoked, okay, simply to explain away the genetic-related data,
okay, the genetic-related data that doesn't support
aid-to-man evolution, nor does it support universal common ancestry in general, okay?
That's a bold-faced one. It absolutely supports that. We have the genetic information for nine
different species of human. Nine.
Whoa, okay, my turn, my turn.
What? Okay, so first of all, everybody, I'm sorry, human speciated? That's what we're dealing with
here? Humans have speciated? All right, well, okay, hold on, I'm gonna upload something for
this. This is just, oh, you go ahead, I'm gonna upload a picture for people because...
Well, I was gonna say, he's about to get into, you could just see that he's totally missing
the point, okay, as of now. And he's got no real explanation for the low genetic diversity that
was not predicted, okay? So that's already what he's missed. He doesn't understand,
and we're gonna see that more, he doesn't understand the design diversity hypothesis
that suggests that God would have front-loaded Adam and Eve and the created kinds with pre-existing
functional DNA differences, okay? God doesn't make mistakes, so there would not have been any
genetic mistakes at creation, okay? As we know, inbreeding reveals the hidden reservoir of
mistakes. That's why these deleterious, these recessive mutations can come to the forefront,
they can lead to genetic damage. So you're gonna see how he totally misrepresents our model.
Yeah, yeah, go ahead, brother, go ahead. All right. This is pretty clear. This has been obvious.
This is how we know what a species is. It's one of the species concept that everybody agrees to.
What is a new species? It's something that can no longer breed with other species that it split
from. Well, guess what? If he's claiming that humans are breeding with Neanderthal, then he is
ignoring the exact thing that his theory says is true, which is species aren't supposed to breed.
So he's saying that Neanderthal, Denisovan, Astrolampithecus, we all interbred, and therefore
we're related. What? He just admitted we're a different species. So which one is it? Are we not
a different species and we're breeding with species that we can't breed with because we're
not a species? See the non-logical thing? I think even his own audience caught that,
and there were a couple comments were like, wait, Dan, another species? What do you mean?
What do you think? Well, according to the biological species concept, yes, we know we have
genes from Neanderthals. We know we interbred with them. Therefore, we are the same species.
And the same thing goes with like the Denisovans, which we've now discovered.
And none of this was predicted when supposedly humans left Africa. All of a sudden, what do they
find? Homo neanderthalensis, they find the Denisovans, Heidelbergensis, they find so-called
hominid species like floresiensis, which is the hobbit, Naledi, Luzonensis, none of this was
predicted. And if supposedly there was a first out of Africa event, where Arachnus left, and there
were independent origin events, evolutionary events outside of Africa, and you've got this
massive, massive genetic reshaping in Africa due to the population bottleneck that was prolonged
and extended, why when humans left Africa, okay, modern day humans left Africa, why were they able
to interbreed with Neanderthals in the first place? You got massive, massive genetic reshaping going
on in Africa and outside of Africa, and yet they managed to interbreed, pass on their genes. We
have their genetics today. None of this was predicted. This is why the evolutionary story
consists of so many post hoc, ad hoc rationalizations, explanations, okay?
And I'm going to share screen something real quick, because it has to do with something he
was saying earlier, because he's just, I don't even know where to start, Matt, because he's so
out of date. He's so out of date on the out of Africa event. For example, there's a specific
paper, okay, that I have here. I'm going to pull it up on the screen in a second, and what it
implies that you can't actually pin the origin of humanity to a specific place or even a specific
time, okay? So Simon and Dan are just not up to date on the data, and I've got a ton of slides
here, so let me find it first. Here we go, okay? So, and this is a paper from 2021,
and so it's as new as it gets. I'd love to see how we can address any of this. How does he address
the low genetic diversity found in humans? If he wants to resort to the hypothetical population
bottleneck, okay, well then he has to admit that this was not predicted. This was post hoc,
ad hoc to rescue the story. Then he has to explain how this extremely, extremely inbred population
of two to 10,000 was able to spread in all parts of the world, seizing dominion over the planet.
I mean, they would have had years and years of deleterious mutations coming to the forefront
due to inbreeding leading to rapid and accelerated genetic degeneration, okay? That's not even
feasible. We have an example today in the cheetahs. They're down to 7,000. Their sperm
is degenerate. Conservationists are worried about them going extinct. Are we suddenly going to expect
this population of 7,000 cheetahs to spread out in all parts of the world, seizing dominion over
the planet? And apparently those humans that left Africa that were highly inbred, genetically damaged
on the verge of extinction, they eventually invented things like cell phones, laptops,
airplanes, invented the space shuttle, all from some massive, massive near extinction events. So
he has two problems. If he wants to resort to the hypothetical out of Africa population bottleneck,
now he has to explain how that's even feasible, even remotely feasible, but he also has to admit
that this was a rescue device, a retrodiction. They force fitted it into their model because
they never predicted the low genetic diversity because as I explained earlier, if you're evolving
for millions of years, you're accumulating mutations. Mutations are adding more and more
genetic diversity, which means humans should be highly diverse today. So here's a paper,
origins of modern human ancestry 2021. We argue that no specific point in time can currently be
identified at which modern human ancestry was confined to a limited birthplace. I bet Dan's
not familiar with this one. And that patterns of the first appearance of anatomical or behavioral
traits that are used to define homo sapiens are consistent with a range of evolutionary histories.
Origins of modern ancestry. There's a quote here where he says, contrary to what many believe,
Simon and Dan believes this, these are the evolutionists saying this. Contrary to what
many believe, neither the genetic or fossil record have so far revealed a defined time
and place for the origin of our species. Incredibly damaging to his entire points.
And actually you touched on this too, and I'll just kind of make this a double whammy.
How's my audio? Sounds good.
Okay. So you were touching on this too. Findings from Crete, Morocco, California,
the latest in the lead age estimates. So here's a few. Here's a few that contradict what he's
saying. Just showing he's not up to date, right? This is why these guys would fail in a debate.
A series of milestone papers were published in late 2017. This is as this book talking
about contestant bones was going into press. These findings confirm that the ape to man story
is a theory in deepening crisis and simultaneously confirms these outlined in multiple chapters of
this book. So one talks about anatomically modern human looking footprints have been found in Crete
that date to approximately 5.7 million years old. So this finding suggests humans significantly
predate our reputed Australopithecine ancestors. So remember there's also significant overlap,
right? They're seeing now a map between the Australopithecines,
paranthropines, your homogeneous, all significant overlap.
And it also talks about these findings are remarkably consistent with our alternative model,
talking about the biblical model. Homosapien fossils from Morocco were assigned a revised age
of 315,000 years old. These bones are not found where they should be according to their model is
the point. The homosapiens collection from Morocco predates what was previously seen as the oldest
known occurrence of homosapiens, okay? Dated about 195,000 years ago. This greatly extends
the coexistence of homosapiens and their reputed archaic forebearers slash contemporaries,
including Neanderthals, Denisovans, erectus, Naledi, floresiensis, okay?
This greatly confounds any claims of an evolutionary progression within the genus Homo.
It's a big bushy mess. The genetic data is not consistent with their out of Africa event or even
just eight to man evolution, okay? Right off the bat, he misrepresents me because I'm pointing out
the fact that if God truly did create Adam and Eve, we should expect low genetic diversity.
God's creating two people, automatically restricts genetic diversity. Turns out that's exactly what
we find. It's the evolutionists that were shocked. The evolutionists didn't predict this. The
evolutionists invented a story to account for the data, but the story that they invent is not even
feasible because a prolonged event such as that with prolonged inbreeding would have led to a
population of 2,000 to 10,000 that was highly, highly degenerate. So I'm done with that rant.
Go ahead, brother. Go ahead. That was good. I just wanted to reply to two things real quick.
I saw that pop up. Did you two get bullied in school for your beliefs? That would be really
hard because we were atheist evolutionists. So no, we had no idea what young earth creation
even was. So no, no bullying being done because we were just like everybody else.
And another comment, should I unsub from Science Man Dan's channel? No. He talks about
all kinds of stuff. He does comedy. He teaches all kinds of things. Totally different channel
than ours. And besides, don't you want to learn both sides of the argument? We don't want anybody
to unsubscribe. Learn their side. Learn our side. It's what I always say. For example,
Guts at Gibbon's terrified of her viewers to watch our videos because they will see
how badly we destroy Team Dodgeball, Guts at Gibbon. But then we come along, I always say,
watch their videos, watch our videos, come to your own conclusion because it's clear who's the one
who's dodging. That's why we say Team Dodgeball. She'll say things like, oh, I watch Standing for
Truth videos so you guys don't have to. Yeah, you don't want them to watch our videos because
you'll see, they'll see clearly how much she's dodging, so on and so forth. So yeah, don't
unsub to Science Man Dan. Watch his videos. Watch both sides and then watch how we demolish
his videos with, as you can see, we've been going 45 minutes. We've gone over paper after paper
from the evolutionist side. We're talking about predictions coming out of the creationist side,
predictions on mutation rates, mutation rates in Africa, things that the evolutionary community
is not doing. I'll ask Science Man Dan, what predictions can you make? How do you explain
the low genetic diversity in humans? How do you explain the fact that all Y chromosomes on this
planet are nearly identical and they go back to a one Y chromosomal ancestor just a few thousand
years ago so the Y chromosome mutates fast? Same thing with the mitochondrial DNA. How do you
explain all this? How do you explain all this? I'd love to see an answer to all of these lines
of evidence that suggest independent origins and refute universal common ancestry. So yeah,
go ahead, Matt. Go ahead. Oh no, no, you did good. I think we should move on because we're not a lot
all the way in. So I'm going to share screen again and we'll jump right back into this.
This is just great. I mean, poor guy stands nothing, no chance.
Okay, here we go.
Let me just do these super chats real quick. Sure. Before I forget. Logical, plausible,
probable, $5. Super chat. I appreciate the support, brother. It says for the atheists
who are unsubscribing to drop me below 1300. Oh, what do you know? More triggered atheists,
not surprised there. I took screenshots in anticipation. You guys are so predictable.
After show is on. Awesome. I'm excited. I'm excited. And Raymond, $5 super sticker. Thank
you so much. God bless you. Thank you everybody for the support. And I believe there's one up here
from Jeremy. Thank you. We got to the Mitchell one earlier. Logical, plausible, probable. Again,
$2 super chat. I appreciate after show on John's channel. So that being said,
the floor is yours, Matt. Take it away, brother.
As we know, according to their post hoc ad hoc story, it would have been highly damaging since
it consisted of not just a one generation bottleneck followed by rapid and exponential
population growth like us, like our model. It consisted of an extended bottleneck,
a prolonged bottleneck in order to reduce levels of genetic diversity.
Not at all. Homo sapiens interbred with other species of humans. In fact, research of the
mitochondrial DNA of specimens from Germany found that Homo sapiens were mating with Neanderthals
around 220,000 years ago. There's also evidence to suggest that Homo sapiens mated with other
archaic human species as well. All right. It's about to get a whole lot worse. Dan, I'm sorry.
Here we go. Where to begin on this one? Okay. So he's talking about the assumption,
yes, assumption that the 200,000 year old bottleneck actually exists, which I might just
throw in real quick that they admit that there is no bottleneck even in their own geologic column.
As you can see, there is no trace right here in the geological record of any global bottleneck
200,000 years ago. But yet there is evidence inside the genetics of every living thing on
earth from DNA barcoding done by Thaler in 2018 that everything has gone through this genetic
bottleneck, including aquatic life. So I'm sorry. There was a genetic bottleneck. It was worldwide.
Everything has low genetic diversity. Where does this 200,000 year date come from? Easy to explain.
You can even go to Wikipedia. The one thing that they love to go to the most for their
information. Matter of fact, that's what I think he's doing right now. He's like, whoa, let's see
how old humanity is. We're up 200,000 years ago. Sounds good enough to me. Where'd he go for this?
Right here. Estimates of the human mitochondrial MT DNA vary greatly depending on the available
data. And it comes from extrapolation. They assume it is true based on one method.
Now there's two methods. We use the pedigree method, which you can see at the top.
It is the observable rate. It is the empirical rate. It is what we see when we look inside
of human beings. The phylogeny based one is an assumption. It is a guess and it is their best
guess. And they think that that holds precedent over the observable rate. Why? Because of their
bias. They need evolution to be true. So they invent their own method and this is how it's
done. You can see it at the top. They assume a split happened between human and primate
and they calibrate it based on fossil assumption, which again, they admitted right down here that
there was no geological evidence. So they're basing it on the assumption that humans split
and they are basing their molecular clock on that assumption. So when we look at the observable
rates, guess what? They're around 10 times faster. Why are they faster? Because the other ones are
not true. It's obvious. And when we look at the observable rates, look at the substitution rate,
not just mutation rate, but what really matters, the substitution rate, because that's a population.
It affects the population, not just an individual. And look at them. We shouldn't be able to find
this many unless humanity was young, right? I mean, think about it. The mutation rate is
clicking so fast, yet there's only a maximum substitution differences in all humans, about 24.
But yet when we look at the fast substitution rate, we can account for why there's so few
substitutions in humans. Evolution can't do that because theirs doesn't work. And they admit this
right here, actual versus observable rates. Then they admit that it's faster than we even see.
So if we have evidence to prove our model over theirs, like I said, all these things prove us,
and then they say that it's even faster than we give it credit for, then their assumption is dead
in the water. All this nonsense that they came up with is nothing but literal nonsense. Oh,
and real quick, even his own people said, what? Homo sapiens speciated?
Right. I saw that. I saw that. Yeah. People are like, what are you talking about? Humans
don't speciate. I'd like to see them explain, like I said earlier, if there is this massive
genetic reshaping going on out of Africa, in Africa, when humans laugh, they were able to
interbreed with Neanderthals. How did they produce fertile offspring? They both should have been so
genetically different, structurally different. They never predicted any of this.
And this is a part from my book, Special Creation. And I point out how the fossil record,
it's not even a theory. It's not even a good story. It's not even an interesting story.
I'd love to see Simon and Dan answer this. I haven't seen any good answer to this. The
fossil record is so flimsy. There's no evidence for their so-called eight to man story in their
out of Africa story. Okay. So I write here. Let's see. As a matter of fact,
when we look at humans in the fossil record, we see no evidence of hundreds of thousands
of years of human existence, right? Like you're pointing out, they assumed the bottleneck.
They assumed the hundreds of thousands of years. They assumed the deep time, which there's no
record in the geological column for. Okay. So I point out, I want to hear him answer this.
I doubt he will. But so given the evolutionary model, we can assume that there were about a
million Homo erectus living across Eurasia, Africa, essentially handling a massive distribution.
Now let us say their average generation time is 20 years. That means about every 20 years,
you have another million dead bodies, right? And so after a million years, now what we're doing is
we're going according to their model, right, Matt? So after a million years, we have another,
we have over 20 billion dead people. If there are evolutionists in the chat,
I'd love to hear an answer to this. This is 20 billion people of which we have no evidence ever
existed. Just disappeared. Okay. Even to the proponents of evolution, even Simon and Dan
would agree that erectus would have had primitive technology. Okay. They would have had campsites,
villages, fire. There would have been a ton of evidence for their existence. Okay.
Whether we look at genetics or whether we look at the fossil record, we do not find evidence for the
human evolutionary story. So the point is every single fossil of Homo erectus that we have can
fit in the back of a trunk. And yet there should have been evidence for 20 billion Homo erectus.
Okay. Given the evolutionary story. Okay. What you find in the record, you either find fully human
okay. Bones that are fully human. You find degenerate humans. Okay. Like for example,
floresiensis like the hobbits, erectus. Okay. Luzonensis. Neanderthals in their final stages
were highly inbred, highly degenerate. You find true apes and degenerate apes. We don't find
anything in the middle. Now you could point to habilis or setiba, but we know that there's also
strong evidence for what's called artificial species where you've got mixed bones. Okay.
And these mixed bone beds. So there's no evidence, no evidence for this story,
no evidence in the fossils, no evidence in the genetics. Okay. In the independent origins
handbook, I got a section with your Y chromosome phylogenetic tree, as you were talking about.
You know what? I'll just share a screen on this real quick for the visual.
So here's another question for Siamandan. Now, Godzilla Freak pointed out something earlier,
how Siamandan will say something like, oh, this is too long, right? Which is just an excuse. It's
what Vice Rhino said. Oh, too long. Okay. Well, here's your choice then to someone like Vice
Rhino Siamandan. If you don't have time to go through the video, because truly we just know
you can't address it or answer the questions, let's just do a debate. There you go. Hour and a
half, two hours, discuss these issues in a respectful, cordial fashion.
Then you don't got to respond to a two hour video, but it's just all excuses. That's the
point. So as you can see here, a mitochondrial DNA phylogenetic tree reflection of DNA differences.
Same thing with the Y chromosome data. Okay. So here's the thing though. You'll automatically
notice this starburst pattern. Okay. Explosion from a center point. Exactly what we would expect
and predict based on the biblical creation model, right? An explosion from Noah, essentially. Okay.
This, the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree and the mitochondrial DNA phylogenetic tree. Okay.
You'll notice that this is not a reflection of a lot of mutations, hundreds of thousands of years
worth of mutations. This is just a few mutations. Okay. In general, on average, there's about 20
differences that separate any two people in the mitochondrial DNA specifically. Okay.
And max, there's about 100 to 120 or 130 in Africans. Okay. Extremely low genetic variation.
It's extremely easy to account for in biblical timeframe. Extremely difficult to account for
in evolutionary timeframes. And you'll notice the different lengths of the branches. Okay.
This goes for both trees. The different lengths of the branches, you'll see that people,
okay, are picking up more mutations than the same amount of time. More mutations than their cousins.
Okay. It goes back to a common ancestor. That breaks the molecular clock where the
evolutionists want to assume, okay, humans and chimps split, let's say, 6 to 8 million years ago.
They're separated by this amount of DNA differences, which gives us this slow molecular
clock. Way more slow than what we observed, Matt. You were pointing out Y chromosome mitochondrial
DNA. Mutation rates are extremely fast. Way faster than evolution has ever predicted.
So you got Y chromosome mutates extremely fast. You only got a few differences separating any
two people in the Y chromosome. Mitochondrial DNA mutates extremely fast. You only got a
few differences separating any two people on the globe. Okay. Easily accounted for coming from,
you know, common ancestors within a few thousand years, according to the biblical base model. And
the pattern in general fits exactly what we'd expect. Explosion from a center point,
what's called the starburst pattern. Oh, this is an unrooted tree, they'll say. Yeah,
that gives us the most natural reading of the data. Because guess what? The lengths of the
branches destroys the assumptions behind the evolutionary molecular clock. You can't make
assumptions then. Okay. But we know it's fast. We know there's few differences separating any
two people. This is where people like Dr. Dan Stern-Cardinow fail miserably because for one,
they can't make predictions. The best they can come up with is retrodictions.
Nothing that's future and testable. It's all storytelling in order to fit the data. Okay. So,
I just wanted to point that out. And I'd love to see. I'd love to see because we're showing
phylogenetic trees. We're showing reflections of the diversity on the globe. We are showing paper
after paper, empirical evidence. Okay. And Simon Dan's just making sarcastic jokes. Two second
responses. Not demonstrating that he even knows anything about this topic. So, I want to see
answers to this empirical evidence. Okay. These phylogenetic trees don't lie. Okay. This is from
the Thousand Genomes Project. It's a mitochondrial phylogeny. Explain to us. Why does the pattern fit
the biblical model? Why is there so few DA differences? Okay. The mutation rate is very fast.
Because there's only a few differences and the mutation rate is fast. Okay. We can also account
for plenty of purifying selection. Which people like Dr. Dan say we ignore. No. We account for
genetic drift. Purifying selection. Okay. We account for these, these important factors.
And it fits perfectly in line with the biblical based model. So, Simon and Dan, how do you deal
with this data? You know, what, what can you provide us empirically? Go ahead, Matt.
Yeah. I think he's just going to do what the typical people do and be like, well,
it matches the fossil record. But if that's what they resort to, right? Look. For decades,
they've been using the fossil calibration to do these phylogenetic trees. But guess what?
They go, well, it's really difficult to reconcile with the fossil record. Because it doesn't match.
Then, guess what? When they do look at the different models, they go, well,
pedigree studies, which is what we look to for mutation rates, they're more reliable than
phylogenetics. Why? Because it's reality. That's why. And they admit that it's biased. Look,
it's rather the phylogenetic rate that estimates that are biased. Why? Because they know it doesn't
match the reality of things. So, they admit that it's wrong. They admit that it's biased.
And they say it in these studies. It's not like some of them are trying to hide it. They're just
like, it doesn't match. That's the reality. So, Dan's going to go to the fossil record,
and he's just going to do what everybody else does and fail. And look, many studies continue to rely
on the phylogenetic analysis of mtDNA, the control region, which is the D-loop, and these haplogrape
trees, right? Because they need to. That's kind of what they've done. And, well, how about selection?
They go, well, selection is unlikely to be a major factor that unlies the differences between these
things because they love to invoke selection. Well, maybe it's removing these mutations,
and that's why they're so fast. You hear that all the time, right? Well, selection, it can remove
these things, and then we don't see them. So, you realize that by invoking selection, you're
speeding the rate up, right? I don't think they even grasp that. But then, look at this one. In
this present study, we expanded our previous analysis of the control region divergence in the
multigenerational pedigree study that the results of our analysis, as well as those from other
studies, indicates that there is a difference between these two rates, meaning the difference
between phylogeny, which is evolutionary, and the pedigree, which is ours. And guess what? There has
been a battle, and the evolutionists wanted to debate and say, well, our fossil record one is
stronger. And guess what? The pedigree study was defended by Howell and Holland, Parsons, and Howell
and defended easily. It says right on the bottom. They were attacked, and they defended their work.
And then phylogenetic-based assumptions may be biased downwards if the substitutions are not
fully neutral. And we know they are not. So, we will go on, but I just wanted to show you,
he's going to just do what everybody else is and be like, well, phylogeny is true because we have
the fossil record. And they admit that the fossil record doesn't match the mutations, doesn't match
the pedigree rates. Nothing matches because they have the false narrative. They're building
backwards. They see evidence, and they go, well, it has to match our model, and it doesn't. So,
let's just use this. We'll just invent our own thing, and we'll go with phylogeny because
evolution must be true. It's the paradigm driving the conclusion. That's all it is.
It's biased, biased assumption. And we'll move on unless you want to close it up.
You're muted. You're muted.
My bad, brother. I was saying, no, I mean, as you, I can go forever,
but I'm just biding my time. Like, you know, we'll let him dig his hole a little bit deeper,
and then I'll continue making some comments. So, yeah, go ahead, brother.
All right, here we go. Sheer screen.
That they did not predict, by the way. This is why it is exactly a post hoc ad hoc rescue device.
It was essentially a near extinction event, an event that was connected with
severe inbreeding. We know, genetically, we know what inbreeding does. We know what the effects
are. Indeed, we do. But homo sapiens did not do that. Interbreeding.
What does he mean humans didn't inbreed?
I know it doesn't sound like he understands his own model.
Yeah. As breeding with closely related people over generations. There weren't one or two
families of homo sapiens to start with. And as indicated earlier, homo sapiens bred with other
human species as well. Here is my personal DNA profile image. Look, I am 99.9% European.
No surprise there. But crucially, I have around 2% neanderthal genes in my genome.
Why is that? Because my ancestors mated with them. Because.
Right. Do you want to take it away on that one?
Man. I mean, we covered this already. He thinks there are different species, clearly.
Right. Let me, okay, here. Let me, I'm going to address the bigger picture with what he's saying
too. And I may cover a few things that he's going to say as well after this. But it's important
to address what he's saying. Okay. Because maybe they were never down to two people, obviously.
Like we, in our model, we got Adam and Eve, the flood bottleneck. We got eight people. Okay.
But they do have the extended bottleneck at some point to reduce levels of heterozygosity to
explain the low levels of genetic diversity today. And they need a prolonged bottleneck for that,
whenever that is. Right. I've seen bottlenecks invoke 200,000 years ago. I've seen them invoke
70,000 years ago. Okay. In my first debate with Erica, she had no answer to this. She's fumbling
all over herself. She said, well, there's that Toba extinction event that was a bottleneck. Now,
in her video, she's saying, no, there was no Toba extinction event. You know, that's not supported
by the science. She's like, well, that was the rescue device you were using in our first debate.
So they can't agree with each other on when these bottlenecks were because there's no evidence for
them. It's all post hoc ad hoc. That's the point. Talk to 10 different evolutionists. You get 10
different bottlenecks. Okay. Some say 200,000 years ago. Some say bottleneck during the
erectus into kind of modern Homo sapiens stage. But okay. I'm going to point this out.
Now, if all of humans came from Adam and Eve, let's say our model just thousands of years ago.
Okay. Let's start there. How could we have survived such a profound bottleneck? This is
what the evolutionists will say. This is what you'll find all throughout the comments section
of Simon and Dan's video. This is what Simon and Dan himself is implying. Okay. How could we have
survived such a profound bottleneck? You heard him say that there. We never started from two
scoffing at the biblical model. Okay. Well, they will then say, you know,
wouldn't humans have gone extinct due to inbreeding? Okay. Cause you got
a marrying and interbreeding with close relatives. Okay. People are marrying their brothers and their
sister, their cousins. They'll say, wouldn't this drive us to extinction? Because we know today,
when we look to today, Matt, marrying close relatives is bad. Well, why is it bad? They
never want to get into this. Simon and Dan doesn't seem to understand. Inbreeding manifests the hidden
reservoir of genetic mistakes. Like I said earlier. Okay. These genetic mistakes that have
been accumulating are now manifested. Okay. So, um, therefore these recessive
deleterious mutations, they can come to the forefront, leading to disease, leading to
disease. Okay. Let's go back to our biblical bottleneck at creation. Okay. So we start with
Adam and Eve, right, Matt? They were specially created. Okay. Front loaded with created nuclear
heterozygosity. Simon and Dan wants to say, oh, this is, this is post hoc. This is magic. Oh,
really? Because it's funny how it leads to accurate testable predictions on DNA function,
speciation rates, mutation rates. Okay. We would predict the vast majority of DNA differences.
DNA elements are functional and essential. And that's exactly what we're finding. Okay. For
example, these orphan genes, these taxonomically restricted genes, I debated conspiracy cats,
which I believe these guys are buddies. And I asked them in both debates, I said, how can you
evolve something like an orphan gene? Okay. These taxonomically restricted and essential genes,
you would need five or six mutations that are beneficial. Okay. To begin with. And we've never
observed this, you know? So what we see in terms of function and the essential functionality of the
genome, the activity of the genome supports this front loaded diversity model. Plus the,
the speciation events we see, right, Matt? We see, for example, new bird species in real time.
Speciating through shifts in heterozygosity to homozygosity, just like we would predict.
Adam and Eve and the biblical kinds at creation would have had the most heterozygosity.
And over time you'd have shifts from heterozygosity to homozygosity. We'd have less
heterozygosity today. Okay. And we're seeing in real time speciation events, this is exactly how
animals are adapting and speciation, speciating. Okay. So we've got Adam and Eve specially created.
This is then followed by what? Rapid and exponential population growth. This is what
is called a one generation bottleneck versus their population bottlenecks, which are prolonged
bottlenecks. Not followed up by rapid and exponential growth. Okay. Now remember,
Adam and Eve were created de novo. This is completely different, Matt, right? As you know,
this is completely different than the evolutionary bottleneck. This is why straw man Dan is,
this is why cyman Dan has devolved into straw man Dan and misrepresents
us because as he has been, and you'll see throughout the video, he is arguing against
evolutionary creation. An evolutionary bottleneck starts with a population that already has,
right Matt? Already has a history of picking up mutations. Matt, would Adam and Eve being
specially created front-loaded with nuclear heterozygosity, would they have a history before
that? You would look at them and you, right? If scientists came about and did some genetic
sequencing, you know, and they saw these DNA differences, even though they were just created
an hour before, they would conclude there's a history. No, there would be no history.
Adam and Eve would have been created without mutations. They would not have had a previous
history where they picked up bad mutations over time. Okay. Today, the nuclear mutation
rates roughly 100 new mutations per person per generation, right? So take this point of
mutation accumulation back to a point of no mutation accumulation. That's a point of perfect
genomes, a point of Adam and Eve. There'd be no mutations. Okay. But the evolutionary model
suggests, no, whatever population went into the bottleneck, Matt, that population would still
have a history before it, where they have picked up mutations over time. That's why the bottlenecks
are bad in the evolutionary model, because now those bad mutations that have been picked up over
time are going to be manifested leading to genetic damage, leading to disease. That's why the biblical
bottleneck with Adam and Eve is nothing like the evolutionary bottlenecks, where they have years
and years of inbreeding, where more and more Adeloteers mutations are coming to the forefront,
leading to genetic damage. That's why their hypothetical out of Africa population
bottleneck is not even feasible. Okay. It's prolonged. They need it to be prolonged.
Speed of sound, who has no answers in atheism always ask, what do you mean by a prolonged
bottleneck? Why does it have to be a prolonged bottleneck? Well, one generation isn't going to
reduce all of the necessary amount of genetic diversity. They need a prolonged bottleneck.
We have really low genetic diversity today. Okay. This is the last thing I'll say. The biblical
bottlenecks, Adam and Eve, and the bottleneck at the flood are one generation. You have Adam and
Eve having many kids and their kids having many kids and so on. And this also goes for Noah's
family. Okay. And I could get it, you know, I'll save this for later. I'll get into the
DNA markers and different types of genetic diversity today, found today in a little bit
and how that confirms independent origins. But it's this simple. Okay. It's this simple for
people who support Simon and Dan. I'm going to make this really simple. According to the
biblical creation model, inbreeding would have been a non-issue. Okay. Since there would have
been no deleterious mutations. That's it. There's no deleterious mutations to come to the forefront
that can lead to genetic damage. He completely misunderstood my point. Yes. For a couple
generations, there's going to be inbreeding. That's fine. Do they think this world and the
history of this planet is all puppies and rainbows? It was necessary. Who did that first
single celled organism marry? You know, that's a little tongue in cheek. But seriously, even they
believe in periods of inbreeding. It is what it is. It's reality. Get over it. You know,
quit using these weak arguments. Mutations are essentially typographical errors and attacks.
Copying errors. There would have not been any copying errors at creation. So,
there's no copying errors that can come to the forefront due to inbreeding and lead to
genetic damage. It's that simple. If he can't get that, then maybe he just needs to retire.
Go ahead. Go ahead. That was a rant, but I think it was important. Go ahead.
No, no, no. How about this? I made it easy for everybody. You tell everybody. We've sequenced
Eve's genome. We know what it is. Right? And so, what we've done is taken these studies and put
them into one place for people to go and see. You know, those common questions like, where did Kane
find his wife? What is Eve's sequence? Like, what's going on with genetic diversity,
patriarchal drive? These things are put into one article that you can find on creationist clothing
right here. So, you can see, we have the evidence that Eve existed, and we know what her genome was.
Because like he's saying, if we know how many mutations have been building up, and we know
we can look, and there haven't been that many, and they happened over a short period of time,
and you rewind to a point of genetic perfection where there was no mutation going back in time,
well, that was Eve. Real simple, right? There is the data. For those of you that want the
math and the numbers, it's right there. Right there. It's that simple. It's that simple.
I think you're going to, were you going to say something about the Neanderthal or?
Oh no, that's coming up. Okay. Okay.
As these mutations, okay, they come to the forefront, and they lead to rapid
and accelerated genetic degeneration. They're manifested essentially because of inbreeding.
And there's a lot of evidence to suggest that other than homo sapiens breeding with them,
interbreeding is what finally killed the Neanderthals off.
Hey, can you believe that? He got something right.
Yeah, it's not a good thing. And this is why this fairytale that the evolutionary community evokes
is not even, not even somewhat, not even somewhat reasonable. And this is why those who hold to
evolutionary theory and eight to man evolution, okay, this is why they have an unsolvable problem.
Do we? Really? And this is the issue. This is the issue.
Pause it just for two seconds. Yeah.
Okay. I want to point out the obvious. Okay. He just, he just glazes over the Neanderthals.
The fact that genetic evidence, okay, tells us that Neanderthals interbred with the direct
ancestors of modern people. Like we were saying earlier, if we look to the biological species
concept, then we are by definition the same species. And it appears, it even appears that
people outside of Africa, right, as we pointed to, he showed his genetic results too, carry three
to four percent Neanderthal DNA. That is not something they predicted. Okay. And we can get
into a whole bunch of things that we have. I would just tell people to go watch our video from a few
weeks ago on Neanderthals where we discussed just how highly intelligent and sophisticated they
were. Right. They had purposeful navigation. They buried their dead. They made boats. Right.
Which is evidence of purposeful navigation. They were into cosmetics, had music, list goes on and
on. Okay. So I recommend people go look at that. This was never predicted. This was never predicted
by the evolutionists. Okay. A hundred years ago, they asserted Neanderthals were some half ape,
half man, brutish type of creature. The exact opposite today. So I like how he just bypasses
that for his ignorant audience for the most part, who don't know the history of failed prediction
after failed prediction when it comes to the evolutionary model. Okay. They didn't predict
this about the Neanderthals. And now we have the genetic data that suggests that we, at least with
people outside of Africa, carry three to four percent of Neanderthal DNA. We're the same species.
Get over it. And the Tower of Babel event and the dispersal of all these people groups best explains
why a lot of these subgroups of people went extinct. They're all humans, but they became
highly degenerate because they became isolated. Some of these people groups got isolated on
islands where you've now got island dwarfism. Okay. Like the hobbits, Naledi, Luzon Ensis.
None of this is evidence for large scale human evolution. It's evidence for the biblical model.
Yeah. Go ahead, Matt. Go ahead. Nothing. I just wanted to share the screen with you with what
we actually, with what they predicted and what they saw Neanderthal as, and then what we know
today, just normal human beings. So it's pretty funny backpedaling and the falsification that
they've actually had over the time because by any criteria, multiple falsifications is a
falsification. It means you're wrong. And of course, nothing, evolution can't die. So they
just have to revise it and backpedal and hope that everybody forgets the past
because their model's dead. Pretty simple, but let's move on. Here we go.
All DNA differences, all DNA diversity as a result of what? As a result of mutations,
as a result of genetic mistakes over time, essentially. As we know, and as we covered
in independent origins moment number one, we talked about the design diversity hypothesis
that we start with the assumption that God would have front-loaded Adam and Eve,
which applies universally across the biblical kinds. God would have front-loaded them
with created nuclear heterozygosity because when God said to be fruitful and multiply,
did God mean for this to be carried out through cloning? Of course not. Of course not. God did
not say to be fruitful and clone yourselves. He said be fruitful and multiply. So this is why
the starting point of design diversity makes sense both theologically and scientifically.
Okay. The reason I love using stream here. Well, that's easy.
That's okay. It is pretty funny. Go ahead.
No, I was just going to say that he lets me go on and on for a while. And then his little
like three-second responses are just hilarious because they're not addressing anything. And I
just find it so funny, which is how we started off this video. His own viewers, his own,
at least the ones that are objective or understand the topic realize and pointed out, Dan,
you're misrepresenting him. Dan, this isn't a good rebuttal. Dan, you should try harder next time
from his own supporters. So yeah, go ahead, brother.
Yeah, I know. And they don't even like creationists. They hate us.
They're like defending us. It's funny.
Right. Right.
Two people. And you want to say that homo sapiens have an interbreeding problem.
Right. Now here's...
Pause it real quick.
Yeah.
No, I'm not going to resay everything that I just did. So just two seconds.
Once again, misunderstands what I just said when it comes to design diversity,
when it comes to inbreeding and why inbreeding is bad because these genetic mistakes are coming to
the forefront. If there are no genetic mistakes to come to the forefront to lead to disease and
genetic damage, then there's not going to be a problem. So there can be inbreeding,
but there doesn't necessarily have to be the negative effects or consequences of inbreeding.
But for the evolutionary models, since they explain all DNA differences as mutations over
time, then yes, it is bad for them. And Dan, Simon and Dan needs to quit arguing against
evolutionary creation. We don't explain the majority of DNA differences as a result of
mutations like they do. They explain, okay, ultimately the source for all genetic
variation as mutation. So when they have bottlenecks and they invoke bottlenecks,
then guess what? You are going to have some really, really bad consequences because of
the inbreeding, especially when your bottlenecks are prolonged. Okay. So yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead,
brother. Continue.
Here's what I find funny, guys. The fact that the critic will very frequently...
Dan, I've had almost a hundred debates and I have discussed and debated the critic on
this argument more times than I could count. Essentially, if I had a dollar for every time
this argument was utilized by the critic, I'd be probably a trillionaire, to be honest.
He goes on here for over... Out of everything we've talked about,
this is what he wants to focus on.
I'll play it.
Yeah. Just play it because even his own audience realized, okay, he's ignoring all the science.
He's ignoring all the papers. Okay. That's why this has been so fun. We're just demolishing
him with empirical facts, scientific papers. Ignores everything. Really just makes us look good
and then focuses on a clear exaggeration. Sci-Man Dan, Sci-Man Dan, I told you a billion times not
to exaggerate. He's going to take that, what I just said, as something serious.
Play it. Play it just for a laugh. This is funny. This is what he spends the most time on. Go ahead.
All right. One trillion times in a hundred debates, which is 10 billion times per debate.
Let's say that argument given took 10 seconds to give. That would mean...
Keep going.
3,170 years and you've had a hundred debates, which means you've been going at this for at
least 317,000 years. How old does the Bible say the earth is again?
It's based on a straw man and a misrepresentation of our starting point and our model.
The argument has to do with inbreeding. They'll say we have an inbreeding problem according to
the biblical base model of ancestry and independent origin book A.
Well, I don't understand how it's not a problem.
No kidding.
So now, at least if he watches this video, Matt, I spent 10 minutes there explaining why it's not
a problem in more detail. If he continues to use this argument or continues to say,
I don't understand why this is not a problem, then he's either just pretending to not understand
or he doesn't understand, which means he probably shouldn't call himself Simon Dan because he's not
understanding the basic science as to why inbreeding is even bad in the first place.
So there's nothing worse than arguing with somebody you disagree with by misrepresenting
their position. So when he argues against us by arguing against evolutionary creation
with that assumption that the ultimate source for genetic variation is mutations,
then he's going to fail every time like he's failing here.
Go ahead, Matt.
It's a problem. There were originally two people, according to the Bible,
a man and a woman. When they have children, then it just doesn't work.
What?
Crazy.
He doesn't know.
It's, yeah.
Oh, go ahead.
You know what? I'm just going to, yeah. If you want to stop the share,
the shares, I know you're going to want to say a couple of things too. So let me,
I'm going to, I'm going to share a screen on a couple of pictures here, but I want to,
I want to point out how easy it is to account for all your ethno-linguistic, let's say,
differences. There's no races. There's one race, the human race. Okay. The Human Genome Project
has demonstrated that. We've got different variants. Okay. So if you accurately represent
the creation model, the design diversity hypothesis, okay, then you understand
this whole concept that goes back to basic genetic principles.
Simon Dan's calling himself Simon Dan. So he should be able to understand what it means when
you look to, let's look to alleles, for example, you can look to, you know, capital and lower case
letters, right? Big A, little A, big B, little B. That would mean you're genetically heterozygous.
Okay. And these letters, okay, to the audience, what these letters, I'm going to break this down.
What does created heterozygosity indicate? Well, these letters, okay, constitute different features
and different traits. Okay. So for example, when it comes to Adam and Eve,
which he gives no reason why it's not possible, he just flat out says it's not possible. Okay.
It's too funny. With Adam and Eve, assuming front-loaded genetic diversity, okay, if you
have capital A for say dark skin and a lower case A for light skin, and then you have a couple,
okay, who's created genetically heterozygous like Adam and Eve, well, if Adam and Eve are a mix of
capital and lower case letters, right? Capital A, lower case A, capital B, lower case B. Okay.
Not only that, you would apply this to all the millions of DNA positions in the genome. That's
a lot of diversity built in to the first couple. Okay. That means they would essentially be a
middle brown skin tone, and they would, as a result, have the potential to produce
every shade of skin that exists on the planet. They would have in their DNA,
okay, if they were created genetically heterozygous, capital A, lower case A, capital B,
lower case B, they'd have the genetic potential to produce every shade of skin that exists on
the planet today or known to man. This is not that difficult. And let me go find, I got a couple
slides to show this. I'm going to share a screen and then yield to you for a bit, brother. But this
is important. This is important. This is a science lesson for Simon and Dan.
These are teaching moments. So right here, we have couples today. Okay. For example, here,
here's the names. They both have black fathers and white mothers. As a result,
the couple conceived the extremely rare combination of black and white twins.
And here's an example of your alleles. Okay. Middle brown, capital A, lower case A, capital B,
lower case B. And you'd have the potential to produce every single shade of skin just
from starting from there. Remember, remember, we have, okay, we have within ourselves
about 3 million positions that are different. We are heterozygous. Okay. And Simon and Dan
obviously doesn't get this. So what this means for the audience sake is we have roughly 3 million
places where let's say you were to look at, to take one of our chromosomes. Okay. Take one
chromosome. You would find one place where we got a different letter from dad than we got from mom.
Okay. We're heterozygous at that position. Therefore, actually, if we were to look at
most of the genetic diversity found around the world today, let's see Simon and Dan address this.
He wants to say, this is post hoc ad hoc. Let's look at the data we have today on genetic
diversity. Okay. You can look at the hat map data. For example, we know this information. Well,
guess what? It's easily accounted for from the biblical model. There are roughly,
Matt, as you know, there are roughly about 10 million common variants found around the world.
There's a lot of rare variants, of course, but about 10 million common,
which means if we carry roughly 3 million, just ourselves, therefore we alone carry about one
third of the world's genetic diversity. And just us, if my wife and I could hypothetically
live for however long. Okay. And we got to have a million children. Every single child would be
genetically different. None of them would look the same because we're genetically heterozygous.
And, and this is the last thing I'll say, cause I just, I want to, I just want to
just destroy this video, right? Leave no stone unturned. Most of these common variants are not
disease causing. This is where we can make some predictions as to what's a created allele and
what's just due to mutation, right? Most of these common variants, the 10 million, Matt,
they're not disease causing. Okay. This makes sense given the design diversity hypothesis,
right? God frontloads Adam and Eve with preexisting nuclear heterozygosity.
We can then safely assume that these variants are created variants. Okay. If we have 10 million
today, common variants, God only needed a front load Adam with about 20 million. Okay. Half could
have been lost at the flood bottleneck. And now we're left with 10 million, the 10 million we
have today. We have Adam obviously at creation with, with more diversity than people have today,
but it's not an extreme amount. If we alone carry 3 million, it's not unrealistic to say Adam had
between 10 and 20 million DNA differences. So the diversity of our first couple, Adam and Eve,
then gives rise to the diversity today. And it can all be explained by basic Mendelian
principles, genetic principles, big A, lowercase a, big B, little lowercase b. So I know that that
was, um, again, a long rant, but it just shows how little they understand about our model.
Um, go ahead, brother. Go ahead. No, I don't think they give enough credit to recombination.
You know what I mean? They're, they're literally looking to just mutation continuously. And that's
how they devise their skin color arose. Remember a primate has no pigmentation to their skin.
A primate is white if you shave them. So therefore the first primate had to get some type of a
mutation that made its skin black. And then another mutation had to come later and make it
pale again, ironically. So a bit of the mutation had to darken their skin, even though primates
never get skin cancer, by the way. So somehow it was a smart idea for them to lose all their fur
and then get a mutation that caused skin color to form, even though there was no reason to do so
whatsoever. And then now this new skin color had another mutation to cause wider pale skin.
And that's what we see when we get into the European and then darker skin is actually
needed to be in more sun to make more vitamin D and primates also don't have that problem.
So nonsense down the line when you're looking at it from an evolutionary perspective,
but that was a tangent and my bad, I'll go on.
Well, what was that?
No, I was just saying no problem, brother. No, that's good. This is good. This is good.
It's a deep topic. It's also a topic we're very passionate about as we've even written numerous
books on it. And I will say guys, confidently, Matt and I, we've dealt with every objection
you can think of from these guys and especially on this topic. So Simon Dan doesn't realize what
he's dealing with, which is fun. It's funny. And you can see that when you get into a debate with
some of these guys, like when I debated conspiracy cats, he's a smart guy. I like him. He's a good
guy. He's respectful as a cordial debate, but you could tell through his responses. He never heard
of this before. A lot of people are not up to date with the science of young earth creation,
the predictions. Like Matt, whenever you're in the comments section, you're a beast because
you get these scoffers that come in, they're scoffing at the video, scoffing at the arguments,
and you ask one question. Can you name one single young earth creation prediction?
No response, silence, crickets. You don't know the model. The old earth creationists are the worst.
Look at your inspiring philosophies, your sentinel apologetics. These guys are worthless.
They don't understand. They're arguing against young earth creation from like the 1800s.
I don't know what's up. And then they will always appeal to like your PhDs. Okay. We've debated the
PhDs. We've debated Dodgeball Dan many times, debated Dr. Steffenfellow. We've had all these
experts on that are on the evolutionary side and they all fail. Dr. Dan was brought in for damage
control. And he had all this time to prepare probably, and still gave zero testable predictions,
tried to pass off a retrodiction. It was a prediction. No wonder why he tapped out.
So yeah, this is, we're going to have a blast with debunking these guys. Simon, Dan, Vice,
Rhino, Professor Stick, R and Ra. These guys, it's funny because they really do have worse arguments
than your, like your people like Team Dodgeball, even though they're lesser known. So you're
big dog. This is going to be fun. This is going to be fun. Go ahead. That was a rant, but I just,
I wanted to point that out. Yeah. Yeah. They, they don't even realize the trouble that they're
in. Yeah. It's just, they're in so much trouble. But back to the video for now. Let's share.
Here we go. Real, Matt, one thing before you share, because someone in the audience said
you've written books. Yeah. We, I just released, so these are the two books, Independent Origins
Handbook. So these are smaller ones. They're more basic, but it covers kind of what we're
talking about with Independent Origins in an easy to understand way. But if you want to get into
more comprehensive written rebuttals to the best arguments, I've written this one specifically,
Special Creation. Ra, Matt and I have got a ton of, pretty much most of these books back here
are books we've written. And we've, we've pretty much dealt with, dealt with all of this. So
you can find all these books on, on our website. But you can also find all our information in the
form of articles and also in, in our videos. We've got what, 1100, 1200 videos. So anyways, yeah.
You can find all the books on, on our website. Check out the Goodreads page. I think we've got
what, 250 reviews with one or two bad reviews, one of them from Dodgeball Dan. So you see how
triggered he is? That's a good place to go. Anyways, yeah. I just want to answer that
question. Matt, the floor is yours. You can share, share some more of the video and
I'll leave it to you now, brother. I know you've got some good stuff to say.
All right, here we go. Here's the, here's the thing though. As I said,
it's based on a straw man. It's based on a misrepresentation. There's no problem at all.
Let me briefly explain why we don't have a problem. This will be interesting within
bringing like the evolutionists do. Think about it. According to the model of independent organs,
okay, according to our model of biblical ancestry, we start with just two people, Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve were specially created by God, okay, just roughly 6,000 years ago.
And then 10 generations later, we have a second, okay, a second bottleneck of what?
Of just eight people. Okay, Noah, his wife, their three sons and their wives. Okay, so eight people.
So you've got two engraving problems then. At creation, since we hold the design diversity
hypothesis, Adam and Eve would have started with no mutations, no mutations. This goes back to
genetic entropy, okay. We take this point of most accumulating mutational load, okay, this point of
most genetic entropy, okay. Take that back to a point in time of least accumulating mutations,
okay, a point of least genetic entropy. That would be point of creation. That would be this point of
Adam and Eve with no mutations, okay. So 10 generations later, we now have this second,
another benign bottleneck, okay. It is a single generation bottleneck, also followed by rapid
and exponential growth. The thing is, I'm not really worried about Noah's family for this
one because they've come from inbreeding anyway. What I am worried about is the animals. So what
you're claiming then, surely, is that every single animal on earth is the product of inbreeding.
Now remember, and here we go. Okay, so the first problem he had was that there were two bottlenecks,
right. He was like, oh my gosh, you guys have a second inbreeding problem now because he
doesn't even realize that the first one is not a problem, being massive genome, massive differences.
So a person can inbreed and you can become more homozygous from inbreeding, which occurs today.
And yes, there's some problems, but not when there's so much diversity that it allows for
problems. If I have a puzzle in front of me that's 10 pieces big and I damaged three of them,
that puzzle's in big trouble. I'm not even going to be able to probably even tell what it is.
But if I have a puzzle that's 20,000 pieces and I ruin three of them, you won't even notice.
So it's going to take a lot more damage to notice the problem. That's what inbreeding does. It
causes the damage and you break up some of those pieces. It doesn't matter in the very beginning
because there's no genetic mistakes in the beginning. So we know that these accumulations
are happening. We see it when we look at these studies and we see that there's genetic meltdown
going on, but we'll get to that in a minute. And he said, I'm worried about the animals. Don't be.
Because when we find, when they do place two animals on an island and their only option is
to inbreed, what do we find? The exact opposite, which was predicted and expected by evolution.
Heterozygosity went up because they, because divergence went up. We'll talk about it in a
minute. But what happened to animals, right? They get, they come off the arc. They get,
they have the entire world to diversify and migrate and reproduce and speciate.
That's going to cause the diversity to go up. It increases. That's why we're saying that inbreeding
is a problem. It's an inbreeding for your model because you're stuck in a small population
in a little place for thousands and thousands of years. That's why inbreeding is a problem.
Not for us because we have the entire earth to diverge into.
We have massive amounts of diversity with lots of room in the world to go and diversify. And
that's what we found when we put sheep on the Kooligan islands. We dropped them off there in
1957, 20 something years later, we go back and guess what? Heterozygosity went up and they're
all over the island. Within like 40 years, they populated and are just fine. Exactly what we would
expect to see if Noah's flood was true and the arc was possible and exactly the opposite of what
evolution expected and against all predictions. So don't worry about the animals, dude. They're
fine. We see them, don't we? And they, they're here because they survived Noah's flood because
of Noah. And inbreeding was not a problem for that reason. I'll give it away to you.
One thing I'll say to that is notice to the audience. And I want to say also,
thank you so much for the super stickers, for the super chats guys. You are all amazing. And
I really appreciate all the support that you show Rahm, Adam, myself, and this ministry. So
God bless everybody. I'm glad everyone's having a good time. One thing I wanted to point out that
the audience is probably noticing and for Simon, Dan, and everyone else, thank you so much for
for Simon, Dan's crew that decided to watch this, they'll notice too, everything we're saying,
Matt, just like what you pointed out there on how you can get a massive population increase from
just two, right? This is all based on papers, right? Secular papers, empirical data, empirical
information. Isn't it funny how, especially when it comes to testable predictions, which is the
gold standard of science, the evolution is years ago. They're the ones that set that standard. And
now they're not meeting the standard. They're not meeting the standard. We are, but see how this
rebuttal is. Yeah. Some jokes, some sarcasm, his rebuttal, all sarcasm, no substance,
really no papers. And the papers that he did show support our position anyways, which he didn't get
like, for example, with the Neanderthals. So yeah, go ahead, brother. Go ahead.
Okay. All right. Here we go.
Inbreeding reveals the hidden reservoir of genetic mistakes. If there are no genetic mistakes,
okay, to be manifested, to lead to the negative and damaging problems that inbreeding results in,
okay, according to our model, Adam and Eve would have had no mutations. And at the flood,
there would have been some mutations, but not nearly enough to lead to the type of genetic
degeneration that the evolutionary model would consist of. Because remember, the evolutionists
explain all DNA differences as a result of mutations over time. So by the time they get
to their bottleneck, okay, they've had millions of years of mutation accumulation because adding
mutations adds genetic diversity. So they explain the origin of genetic diversity,
the natural selection can act upon this variation, okay? But because of natural selection,
these mutations don't always end up in a species that survives. Of all the species that have ever
lived on earth, 99.9% of them are now extinct. Natural selection is a bitch. It really is.
So those mutations which you claim are accumulating are not. They are being weeded
out systematically and methodically by natural selection. All right. See, that's another problem
that he has in his way of thinking. He's assuming that these near neutral mutations are actually
being seen for selection to remove. And as you know, that is not the case because when we look
at all the people that recognize it as a problem, they have a name for these problems. As you can
see, this is one of your favorite topics is the genetic degradation going on in humans. And they
invoke selection, and they actually admit that selection is unlikely to be a major factor.
So what do you think about that, man? Well, for one, I challenge him to a debate
titled, can natural selection remove these deleterious mutations? The whole point is
the nearly neutral mutations, the effectively neutral mutations are invisible to selection.
Selection can't see them. Therefore, they are only subject to genetic drift. They accumulate
over time in the same way rust accumulates on the car. Generally, the damage is unnoticed,
and we see this paper upon paper from the evolutionists themselves. They know it's a
problem. That's why they invoke rescue mechanisms such as synergistic epistasis, mutation count
mechanism. All of these fail. They're invisible to natural selection based on what we now know
about the total functionality of the genome. It means these hundred new mutations per person,
per generation that are accumulating in the population over time, the majority of them
are deleterious. So not only are they invisible, not only are they neutral, they're effectively
neutral. Selection can't see them, and yet they're still very slightly deleterious to the organism
into the fitness. So over time, this leads to genetic damage and eventual extinction.
And the inbreeding that we see, for example, with the Neanderthals, mammoth populations,
what we see with a lot of your hominid species, what we see with your hobbits.
We see this in isolated butterfly populations. Inbreeding is a sneak preview into where we are
going genetically as a species. Right now, we have filled the globe, of course.
So the eventual extinction is slower, but we can see diseases accumulating every single year. So
he doesn't get it. And I want to point this out too. I want to point out the fact that
I want to go back to the flood bottleneck, where he just still doesn't get
the... He doesn't get what it means to have a bottleneck, what it means to have
bad effects due to inbreeding. Even according to our model, if we go back to the flood bottleneck,
which reduced the human population to eight people, well, Matt, we have had only 1,600
years since creation in the flood, meaning very little mutation accumulation. Remember,
Simon and Dan, remember, don't straw man us. Creation, Adam and Eve had no mutations.
Okay? That means that the flood, we have very little mutation accumulation.
Mutational load would have been minimal. It's the evolutionists that have the problem,
because the ultimate source of variation for them, and I keep saying this over and over again,
to get it into their heads, because remember we debated that zoologist, herpetologist,
Adam Heat, nice guy, great guy, I love him, funny guy, respectful, but when we debated him,
I've debated him three times, we did that... Me and you both debated him on modern day debate.
My opening statement, I laid out the design diversity hypothesis, and right off the bat,
when I asked, hey, can you reiterate the design diversity hypothesis? He couldn't.
And it's not just his issue, all of them, they just don't get it.
So, mutational load would have been minimal at the flood. So, this means a couple generations
of inbreeding after the flood would not result in extinction. It's the deleterious mutations
that result in the negative effects of inbreeding. And yeah, go ahead, brother,
what are your thoughts and what are your comments? Yeah, just look at it from this perspective. We
look inside of human beings, we don't see a lot of mutations, but when we look inside
where these mutations are accumulating, they're fast. So, you can't have deep time
with few mutations with a fast mutation rate. You see the contradiction? You're trying to tell us
that humans go back 200,000 years, but if you did, with the mutation rate that we see in humans,
there is no possible way for that lack of mutations that we actually find. So, therefore,
200,000 years is eradicated, it's gone, it's not even an issue anymore. So, that's the problem
that they have to solve. And then at the same time, they have to figure out like, how come the
vast majority, like 98% of all mutations are harmful, right? They can point to like a handful
of little tiny things like useless ones, useless. Like you think God gave Adam and Eve the ability
to drink milk? No, why? They don't need that. They all got the fruit trees, they were designed
in a garden to come along and eat fruit. So, yeah, it came along to be a little advantageous
later for a mutation to come along and say like, if human beings over here don't have the ability
to drink milk, they're going to die. So, sure, that mutation might pop up, that would be
beneficial like that. But is that the type of mutation that's required to bring a fish to a
human being? Is that really what they extrapolate back to? You know, they have to do so much
storytelling to say like these random, rare, extremely, highly unique beneficial mutations
that pop up to the other 99 that are bad. They just go, well, those are great. They must outweigh
all the bad ones. Really? Well, how come everyone that's getting cancer is having a mutation?
That's what's doing it. Where's the good one that's curing these cancers? There's nothing
the equivalent of the damage that they're causing that we're finding. They're like little tiny
beneficial mutations pop up and then a thousand harmful ones that month. It just doesn't weigh
out. You know, the genetic database attributes 6,000 new genetic deleterious mutations every
three months and no beneficial ones. It takes four years on average to find one beneficial mutation
and it's so negligible. They're just like, okay, well, where's this super huge beneficial one
that's required? It's just not there. So, you have to use logic when you're looking at these
beneficial mutations. Most of them are epigenetics to begin with, but then you find like, okay, well,
here's one that might have something to do with cholesterol. Okay. You know, you're going to need
millions of them. And that's the thing. For example, this comment here makes sense is that
even when you get a truly beneficial mutation, they turn out to still be reductive. They still
turn out to be functionally compromising. For example, they consider sickle cell anemia
a beneficial mutation, even though it's a broken cell, broken protein. Okay. It's reductive. It's
not taking things forward. So, the point is they want to say that beneficial mutations can
counterbalance the damage done by the accumulation of these low impact effectively neutral mutations,
right? Okay. Give them one, two, give them three. It's not going to be able to counterbalance the
damage. Okay. And those ones that turn out to be beneficial turn out to be reductive themselves.
So, they want to take their fish to fishermen. Okay. Through mutations that are overwhelmingly
damaging and deleterious. And they have no type of selection that can remove these mutations
because they're invisible to mutations. There's no way to counterbalance the damage. And we're
seeing that. We see that over and over again. We see that in human populations today. We've seen
it in the past. So, it's just not looking good for them. It's not looking good for them. And it all
goes back to the topic of this video that he's trying to address. They explain the origin of
genetic diversity as a result of mutations. Well, mutations are damaging. Mutations are the
destroyer and not the creator. They're destruction, not construction. So, they're building up over
time. And they're not going to take a single-celled like ancestor into a multi-celled
organism into a fish and then an amphibian, a reptile. Okay. A mammal. A bird. Man. It's not
going to happen. It's all in the imagination. We don't see that today with the effects of
mutations. They're damaging. And he has no way to select these mutations out. That's why their
bottlenecks are extremely bad. They're prolonged. And these mutations that have been accumulating
over time are now manifested. At creation, we have no negative mutations to be manifested.
At the flood, we have very minimal mutations to be manifested. And our bottlenecks are one
generation followed by rapid and exponential population growth. Adam and Eve have kids. Their
kids have kids. Their kids have kids. That's it. Their bottleneck has a huge population reduced to
two to 10,000. Those two to 10,000 remain roughly two to 10,000 for who knows. You can't find an
actual number from them. Thousands of years of inbreeding. Thousands of years where you're not
seeing rapid and exponential population growth. Thousands of years where you're seeing inbreeding.
Della tears mutations coming to the forefront. This isn't good. This isn't feasible. We see it
in the cheetahs today. This is their bottlenecks. This is what they have to deal with. So,
nothing he's saying is even addressing anything that I've addressed. I don't think he gets it.
And I love the fact that a lot of his audience noticed that he didn't get it. Go ahead, brother.
No, that's true. Yeah. No, there's no way that he didn't. Matter of fact, I even guarantee if
he were to pop up a beneficial mutation list, he would get like the vast majority wrong. He would
be like finding all these epigenetic things, right? Like it's so funny that they always pointed
to the lactose one. I find that hilarious because we're mammals. We all have the ability to digest
lactose. It's after weeding that's not even necessary anymore. And the reason that it
didn't even became a necessity whatsoever is because some people were living in the
desert where there was no food and nothing except for the milk that they needed to keep consuming
from their animals. And that there you go. And that boom, they finally got one. You know what
I mean? They're like, ah, the epigenetic switch stayed on because of this rare mutation. It's like
we already had the ability to adjust milk. If we didn't, we wouldn't live. We couldn't even
survive as a species because we can't drink. So like you're saying, Matt, most beneficial
mutations are actually turning out to be epigenetic. Epigenetics, it's another layer
of complexity. It's another information system on top of the information system that is genetics.
And it's all evidence of what? Forward-thinking mechanisms in our genome. That's why we see rapid
evolution, but not the type of evolution they need. Rapid adaptation via these built-in,
these front-loaded mechanisms. The capacity is there already. It's like a spare tire in a car.
So Simon and Dan, what type of evolutionary mechanisms can design, can evolve that,
which requires forward-thinking, which points us back to the forward-thinker,
all consistent with the created heterozygosity hypothesis that he completely misunderstands,
completely misrepresents, and strawmans. And that's why we call him Strawman Dan.
Strawman Dan has failed. Go ahead. And I want to point out One God is Nowhere One. I appreciate
the awesome support. Lots more content to come. Matt and I are pretty much doing this full-time
books, videos, conferences. We've got the Genesis Flood Week this week. Tons and tons of great shows
planned. Thank you. God bless you for the support. He says, thank you for your dedication
and the great education, SFT and Dr. Rahmat. One God is Nowhere. I appreciate the support.
Guys, let us know, too, if you see any videos from any of these guys, okay? Because this Another
Evolutionist Bites the Dust series, we're going to be doing this. We're going to be focusing on this
now, okay? Send us videos that maybe you've seen from Simon and Dan in the past or something like
that. Rahmat and I will take a few days, look it over, gather some papers, gather some arguments,
and we have fun doing this. This is awesome. It's been two hours. It feels like it's been
10 minutes. So thanks. Thanks for the support. I'm going to yield, Matt, because go ahead,
brother. Whatever you got to say, or if you wanted to finish off the video and
make our final points, go ahead. All right. Let's jump into it.
They explained this as the result of mutations. So now they've got a ton of mutations that are
just waiting to be manifested, just waiting to be revealed in order to lead to rapid,
essentially, genetic degeneration, okay? Well, we explain the majority of DNA differences as
a result of created nuclear heterozygosity, okay? So according to the biblical model,
okay, both bottlenecks, creation and the flood, were extremely, extremely brief,
okay? But they still would have been inbreeding for that population to grow, okay? Just one
generation. It's a one generation. Seriously, that is rebuttal, eh, Matt? That's his rebuttal.
Everything, and I think I've made it, now remember, these are independent origins moments.
So it's not meant to be highly extensive. He also jumped into independent origins moment three. If
you would have watched one and two, I explain a little bit more in detail, but he just doesn't get
it. Yes, there can be inbreeding, okay? This world, the history of this planet was not all puppies and
rainbows. You've got Adam and Eve who are having kids. Their kids are having kids. The Bible says
that they had many sons and daughters. So for a few generations, sure, it's what they had to do,
but guess what? There were no mutations. So the consequences, the negative consequences of the
inbreeding would not have been there. There's no mutations. There's no negative effects. There's
no diseases resulting. And by the time we get to Leviticus and Moses and God instructs his people
to not marry close relatives, okay? Especially because it's been thousands of years since
creation, mutations have accumulated and therefore doing that, okay, which they did at creation,
which they did after the flood event, sure, without the negative consequences.
This was God's foreknowledge. This is evidence within the Bible of the Bible's
being the inspired word of God. God knew, okay? Don't marry close relatives. You've got mutations
that have accumulated and it's going to lead to genetic damage. It's going to lead to disease.
There wouldn't have been disease at creation though. So he doesn't get it. He doesn't get it.
I'm not going to explain it all over again either, that earlier we touched on that, how
we are heterozygous. We have 3 million DNA differences. We can have kids that are different.
Adam and Eve would have been middle brown, capital A, lowercase A, capital B, lowercase B.
From there, they can produce every shade of skin on the planet. Go ahead, brother.
Yeah. What he doesn't understand is that we're at the end of the road. So
we have a lot less of this built in genetic diversity. That's why inbreeding hurts us more
today. That's why the law was given to stop inbreeding at a particular time in scripture.
God gave it to man because he saw that we keep being funneled down, funneled down.
And that's when it stopped. But yeah, like you said, stop explaining it to the guy. Come on.
Well, I will say this here. Tim H says there's no difference between an effectively neutral
mutation and a neutral mutation. So Tim, what it is is evolutionists have assumed and still assume
that the majority of the genome is junk. Therefore, when these mutations accumulate,
if they're accumulating in junk areas, then the junk areas absorb the mutations,
making them strictly neutral. No deleterious effects at all. That's been completely overturned.
We know that the vast majority of the genome has evidence for function,
evidence for activity. Therefore, when these mutations accumulate,
they're still neutral to the perspective of the phenotype and to the perspective of selection.
Selection still can't see them, but guess what? They're still very slightly deleterious as compared
to strictly neutral. They're effectively neutral. They have very small effects on fitness. They're
still just slightly damaging, like a single spelling mistake in a book the size of an
encyclopedia. On their own, they're inconsequential. It's the buildup of them over time that degrades
the message, destroys the book. That's what we're seeing in our genomes. You can't prove,
you can't demonstrate that these mutations are strictly neutral anymore. No, they all must have
some type of effect on genotype. So I just wanted to address that comment. And the floor is yours,
brother Matt. All right, here we go.
Point is guys, okay, in both bottlenecks, you'd have almost no accumulated mutations, okay? So no
negative, essentially, inbreeding effects genetically. But there was still only two
people. Am I missing something here? Obviously.
Is he saying it's not classed as inbreeding because there was no negative effects?
The definition of inbreeding doesn't care about the results of it. It's defined as breeding
between closely related people. Now, Adam and Eve, obviously not related, but they're children.
What did you mean by that? Obviously not related.
I guess he's saying because they were specially created, they didn't come from parents. So they're
not really brother and sister. I'm guessing. I don't know. I'd have to. A few things that he
said here is very weird. And I would need to have a discussion with him too. Because even when he
talks about the definition of inbreeding, we're saying there was inbreeding for a couple of
generations as in, you know, people were marrying their close relatives. But there were no damaging
effects because there were no mutations that have been built up. So he doesn't, I'd have to almost
talk to him because some of his points just make no sense and demonstrate he doesn't get it.
Right. It just demonstrates too that he just decided to debunk a video without understanding
anything about what you actually believe or understand. It's just like he picked a random
video and didn't watch the series, even though we made the series very short. But, you know,
I mean, look at the animals, you know, he brought up animals, they would have trouble. Well, then
why don't they? How come when we see experiments, they don't have the problem as long as they can
expand and diversify, there's not a problem. If they don't expand and diversify, there's a huge
problem with inbreeding. Well, here's, I'll point out this one thing, okay. When you have
designed organisms, when you have Adam and Eve created de novo with internal genetic diversity,
then we don't have to explain today's diversity as all being the result of mutations over time.
That's the evolutionary assumption. That's how they explain the origin of genetic diversity.
Two individuals, my wife and myself, or Matt, you and your wife, we have what? We have four
chromosome sets. We alone have the ability to allow for incredible,
vast amounts of genetic diversity, which then can be used by what? Natural selection acts upon this
genetic variation. Recombination gene conversion as well gives us new combination of chromosomal
sets every generation. Natural selection can also use this internal diversity that was designed at
creation for adaptive purposes. We don't need evolutionary deep time and we don't need diversity
originating mechanisms like mutations. He doesn't get it. He doesn't get it at all.
Not at all. It's like he's not even trying. He made this too easy.
I'll just go ahead, brother. I'll mute.
That means that the extremely limited genetic diversity is most consistent with the biblical
based model. When God created two people, automatically this restricted genetic diversity
and all of this genetic data that we now have. Matt, pause it for two seconds, brother.
This Tim guy in the chat, clear troll, completely corrected. We've also got a quote here.
Thanks. I hope I'm saying that right, brother. Kimora, under the present model,
effectively neutral, but in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in
every species. There you go. Slightly deleterious, slightly damaging. They're low impact. That's what
it is. Tim, you want the link? You want a debate tonight? Bring it on. Accept correction. It's not
even that difficult. Gosh, go talk to Dodgeball Dan if you want to earn next year's Dodgeball
award, golden Dodgeball. Go ahead. I just wanted to point that out, brother. Go ahead.
All right, go get your Nobel prize. You know what I mean? Go grab that sucker because all those
people are on that list. All those, that list of people, Kondrashov, hey, send Kondrashov an
answer. He wrote a whole book on trying to figure out that problem and you got it. You're the
internet atheist. Got the answers on this channel. True. Okay. This is why we don't have to resort to
fairy tale and far-fetched mental, mental inventions and storytelling. Okay.
And that is the most hypocritical thing I've ever heard someone say. I think we're done on this one.
Oh man. If this is the best they got, how did Simon, he seems like a decent guy, whatever,
but how did he get 500,000 subscribers? If this is the quality of his rebuttals,
like Mendel's accountant, his mind would just pie. He wouldn't even know what to do.
Never heard of it. So therefore it's not true. All of the papers that we showed today,
the huge numbers of papers that we he'll either ignore them, never heard of them, say that
they're not supporting what we're saying. I don't know. But that was like, if I was an evolutionist,
especially on the fence and I watched that video, I would immediately convert to young earth
creation. So Godzilla freak says he got it off flat earth videos. Well, maybe Simon and Dan
needs to stick to flat earth videos. He can leave the real science showing independent origins to
us because he's misrepresenting and Simon and Dan, I'm sorry to tell you
that was really, really weak and we're happy to continue this back and forth, but you're going
to have to do a lot better than that. Go ahead, Matt. What are your thoughts?
Oh yeah. I mean, he'll realize, he'll realize he'll, he'll watch this and pretend he didn't,
but I mean, when your own side or against you, that's pretty bad. I don't think I've
ever gone in and I comment section and been like, Hey, you're, what are you talking about?
That's not what we say. I've never seen anywhere. So, I mean, we kind of go out of our way to be
like, Oh, let's figure out what we're actually going to argue against today. What do you say?
You know, should I actually look at the opponent's argument or should we just go live and make fools
of ourselves? I don't know. It is tinfoil Tuesday, right? Right, right. It's funny because it's the
evolutionists these days that have to wear the tin, tinfoil, tinfoil hats. And Matt, really
briefly, did you want to touch on the genetic diversity also in animals that demonstrate the
same truth of Adam and Eve, right? As humans, we have low genetic diversity overall, demonstrates
we came from just two people a few thousand years ago. They'll often say we don't have the same data
to support animals. But what have we learned through the most recent DNA barcoding? And
did you want to touch on that a little bit, brother, just to make it leave no stone unturned,
as we say? Sure. I mean, I can even just share screen because I don't have anything ready for
that. But, I mean, here, let's look real quick. We got, we can go to Google real quick.
All right. And we can go to a chicken, mtDNA mutation pedigree.
And, you know, they haven't done pedigree studies on all animals, of course, but they've done some.
And guess what? Compared to exactly the evolutionary model, predictions were bad for
them yet again. The pedigree study found that they were exact opposite of what evolution
predicted. They were 15 times faster in their mitochondrial mutation rates. And that, again,
contradicts the evolutionary model. Now, this is just looking at mtDNA mutation rates, right?
And this is just looking at chickens. You can go and you can look at reptiles. You can look at
penguins, which were eight times faster. All of their predictions based on what is the observable
rate is completely contrary to what we expected. And then we get into the CO1 gene. And we,
which is in the mitochondria, it's one specific region. And we go, wow, look at that low genetic
diversity. So what did they do? They go, well, we're not concerning ourselves with dates. We're
just going to say it was 200,000 years ago because that's when the bottleneck was, right? No questions
asked, just assume that it was. But what did they find? They went around and they go, look at that.
Every animal has this problem. Why in the world would a penguin and an anchovy and a sardine
have the same bottleneck? It doesn't even make sense. So they looked in their geological record,
no evidence of anything. They go, well, oh, well, it happened. So not very good, you know,
not a very good explanatory thing. And guess what? Humans right out of that same bottleneck, right?
So it's not like they said, oh, well, humans evolved later from Neanderthal on their own.
No, no, no. They literally believe that a Neanderthal went into a bottleneck, a global
bottleneck, and modern day man came out the other side. Think about that for a second. Think the
logic, the mental gymnastics that you need to think that way. I mean, it's preposterous. And
then you say that, oh, well, Eve obviously wasn't the first woman. She was one of 10,000 other women.
Well, where are they? Where's the evidence for them in the fossil record? Oh, well, nowhere.
Where's the evidence of the millions of women that would have lived before her? Well, nowhere.
What about the genetic evidence? Well, there is none. That's why we trace it to her only.
Oh, okay. So there's no evidence for anything. And then you go,
Yeah, there's no evidence for anything. It's all storytelling, hypothetical, fancy storytelling.
They got great imaginations. Yeah.
Keep going, brother. Keep going. Good stuff. Well, they go, okay, well,
you could do the numbers. You go, well, if she was just, if you go, okay, well,
let's give it to them. Let's say she was one of 9,999 other women. Well,
what, and you go, well, what happened to them? They go, well, they gave birth to boys.
Okay, wow. Never heard of, no creature on earth has ever done that. You know,
that's a first. Or all the other women died. What, were they at the mall? Did they invent
a mall that collapsed during an earthquake? Like, what's going on? Nothing makes any sense.
Like, it's such a rescue device that it's actually pathetic when you actually just step back and go,
well, what happened? Well, that's the rescue device they had to come up with.
It's rescue device after rescue device after rescue device. That's what it is.
It is. It's embarrassing, really, because they admit they don't have the data. They don't have
the information. And, but they believe it more than anything. And look how much they fight
against it, right? They'll fight against yours, which has the information, right? We're looking
at the observable data. And they'll go, well, you guys are wrong, but believe my storyboard instead.
What are you talking about? Yours is falsified. Time to pull up the storyboard, right?
Yeah. It's like, why would I believe yours? The book that I studied when I was in school is in
the garbage. It's all wrong. And the book that you have now in 20 years is going to be in the
garbage because it's going to be wrong. You're just going to keep changing it. Everything's
going to be falsified. Well, what book is he reading? As we showed, his claim,
especially at the beginning, when it comes to the origins of humanity are wrong. Even according to
his, the people that he would look to as authorities, right? From the secular literature.
Just a paper in 2021 saying that we cannot look at the fossil record and genetics and pinpoint
and pinpoint the origin of humanity. Therefore, I want to point out that guess what? Let's look
to our model. Well, not too far outside of Africa would be exactly where what was, Matt?
The Middle East, right? Where the Tower of Babel would have been.
Right.
The Tower of Babel dispersal would have taken place. You got people groups,
the confusion of languages, people going to different parts of the earth.
And when it comes to genetic diversity found in the Middle East, it's very high, isn't it, Matt?
It's high in Africa, but it's also very high in the Middle East, isn't it?
Yeah. And that's why when you get away from the Middle East, it goes down in every direction.
So, I mean, it seems pretty logical to conclude that that was a pretty big hub for genetic
diversity and split exactly what we would predict. Now, how come everything does keep
landing on that? It doesn't have to. None of this has to be true, but yet it keeps doing it.
Our model wasn't just like invented. We didn't go, let's change the Bible to this because the
evidence seems to appear to go right there. No, it's already there and we're just going with it.
We're just like, that's amazing. Look at this. And then we find, wow, the story lines up yet again.
Let's see what predictions would be based off if the Bible were true for that region. Boom,
there it is again. Prediction solved.
Well, like you said, and we've discussed this in the past, and I was recently rewatching a video
by Dr. Rob Carter, where he pointed out the same thing. Northeast Africa is the highest
genetic diversity and genetic diversity goes down as you go westward in Africa and as you
go southward in Africa. Now, given how high the diversity is in the Middle East, right, Matt?
That means the Middle East could have easily been the origin of humanity
or at least where people would have finally went out from Babel and migrated around the planet,
right? This cannot be excluded. I mean, that 2021 paper suggested that there's multiple
evolutionary hypotheses and you can't exactly pinpoint the exact location. So given the levels
of diversity in the Middle East could have certainly been the Middle East. That means,
Matt, and we've spent a great deal of time on this. Maybe we'll touch on this as we start to
wrap things up. If we did come from the Middle East, then that means Africa could have been
founded by a... All it would have had to have been was founded by a large group of people
who already had a large amount of genetic diversity. Many working PRDM-9 sites that
you were talking about that go hand in hand with recombination, recombination rates. We also got
patriarchal drive, right? Where these extremely old biblical patriarchs would be passing on a ton
of mutations. And Noah, given how old he was when he was having children, would have passed on a ton
of mutations. Many mutations in a single generation is adding a ton of diversity to the
population. We could also have... It was Rob Carter. He was pointing out that you could have
wave after wave after wave essentially of migration that would have affected Africa,
meaning more genes are making their way into Africa over time. So then you've got more
diversity there. And we know African populations seem to be able to hold more genetic diversity
over time. They got more working PRDM-9 sites. And we could go on and on over this stuff,
but it's the biblical origins model of ancestry that is making the predictions,
making accurate retrodictions. It's very, very strong. It's a great time. It's an amazing time
to be a young earth creationist. Go ahead, Matt. Yeah. If anybody ever wants to see my predictions
based on the CO1 gene mutation rate based on young earth creation, you can go right to the
creationist clothing and go right down. It's the second article from the top. And you can see the
predictions that I made based on genetic diversity still increasing today. Now think
about it. If deep time were true, what would be happening inside the mitochondria? They would be
very full of mutations. They're not very full. So we know genetic diversity is also going up.
But guess what? Mitochondria also have a mutation saturation point. So the fact that it hasn't
reached mutation saturation also proves that it's very young because we don't see the turnover rate
going on. So we have multiple forms of evidence to say that we can make predictions based on
the increase of genetic diversity. And that's exactly what I've done based on young earth
creation. So that's pretty fun. And I think we'll probably jump into some fun stuff in a minute as
I think we should probably hit the comments from the channel. Yes. Yes. Let's do that. Let's do
that because we've got a ton more videos, guys, in the future we're going to be dealing with.
And thanks so much, Jungle Jargon, for the support, the Super Chat. You guys are awesome.
God bless all of you for the support. Raymond says, Simon and Dan, please respond to another
SFT video, please. Please, Simon. Simon, just pick one or two things in this video because this is
what the evolutionists do, right? They'll take a video that's too hard for them to debunk,
then they'll pick like one or two things out of the two and a half hours. Okay, maybe I'll try
and address this. Okay, Simon and Dan, pick two things that you think you can maybe address. Do
it and then we'll have a back and forth because this is too fun. This is too fun. So thank you
and LPP's After Show is going to be soon. So therefore, we're going to wind it down,
hand it over to Matt Mann for some final laughs. A lot of the things we talked about were technical,
so we're going to wind it down in a fun manner. Laughter is the best medicine. Go ahead, Matt.
All right, we're going to start with the worst one. You read it out loud. That's all for you.
Wait, is that guy Superman? I'm pretty sure without those glasses, he's Superman.
Which video was that on? Was that on Dan's video, Simon and Dan's or mine?
Yeah, he's talking about you. Yeah, that's on Simon and Dan's channel. I thought it was you.
Because Simon and Dan's channel, his comment section has 3,000 comments. So if I had thin skin,
that comment section like that might drive me into early retirement or depression or something.
But to me, I was just cracking up all these comments. I never saw that one, though. That's
funny. That's funny. Yeah, that was a good one. All right, here. Next one. Oh, and I am just in
my lack of words of how stupid his God argument is. Adam and Eve had three sons. Book of Genesis.
How many do you want? They banged their own mother.
It's quite funny how the Bible is being rewritten every time it says something that doesn't support
it. What? What? Rewritten. Do you see kinds reproduce after their kinds? Because these are
the comments that are resulting from Simon and Dan's video. They're equally bad and equally
hilarious. Go ahead, brother. Go ahead. Oh, okay. I'm throwing on more questions. I like
praise jumped in there for you. He's like, get in there and debate him. That a boy.
Probably the top one. I feel the general misconception comes from the fact that he
thinks mutations are bad. We covered that one just now. So that was probably something to answer.
Dan, your information seems a bit outdated. Check up right. Right. His own people, his own people
correcting him. I know. Standing for truth. He knows a lot of big words, but what he's down to
is because magic. It's like godless engineer magic. Right. Yeah. He didn't hear any or opening.
Didn't hear any or opening. He's like, so God did it. Here we go. I think what he, his point
is here is they were inbreeding, but it's fine because they were genetically perfect. You see,
he had it. He even had to tell his own guy that's debunking because you're missing like the entire
point being made, but that's because he focused on the math of your sarcasm. Right. So next time
I do a video, I better not throw any sarcasm or exaggeration in there because Simon and Dan is
going to focus on that for the majority of the video. I just love right there. That was a great
comment. His own, his own supporters are like, uh, Dan, Dan, you missed the point of the video
and his video got 70,000 views. So, uh, whatever it was five nights ago, six nights ago,
my phone was blowing up with comments to that independent origins video. And I was like,
what's going on? And it made its way up to like 700 dislikes. And then I realized, okay,
Simon and Dan made a video and his video is 70,000 views, which means 70,000 people are seeing,
seeing the devolution of Simon and Dan to straw man. Dan. It's a beautiful thing. It's a beautiful
thing, brother. Go ahead. When you actually argue against something, you have no idea what's,
what's going on. I can't even imagine doing it, but, uh, we've got a couple more here
and these are more for just answering their mindset. Um, if Adam and Eve were, were the
first humans, uh, according to the Bible, they only had two boys and one killed the other ones.
That means no more people. See, they don't grasp that. We're the Bible. The scriptures
are following two lineages. They're following sets and they're following canes. And the reason
why is because these are the stories set line is what leads to Jesus. It's not following every
single one of Adam's children. If it did, the Bible would probably be that thick. You know what
I mean? So it's following the lineages that matter for the story that needs to be portrayed. It
doesn't talk about it. It says in the Genesis, if you would have actually read the thing
that they had many sons and daughters, it doesn't say that they just have three boys and one killed.
You know, that's what happens when you are arguing against a subject you don't know.
That's one of the biggest problems because you just get full of nonsense. And then like you said,
if only they were to just read it and not go to some atheist website or anti young earth creation
website and get their arguments. That's what these comments are. So that was a great response.
Go ahead, brother. Yeah, go to the next. There's another one says, but the Bible says that Cain
got his wife from the land of Nod, which had people from where? No. Cain brought his wife
with him. They got married in the land of Nod. Nod is the Hebrew word that means wondering.
It's just a place where he was wondering. And it was to the east of Eden. It wasn't a city.
That's the misconstrue that you get from random websites that don't know anything about the
subject at all. So it's just completely wrong mindset. You're going into it thinking that's
what it says because that's been, you know, reiterated so many times, but it's just a
talking point that doesn't actually exist. The land of Nod means wondering. It means
that's just where he was because that's what he was forced to do. He was outcast and he was,
and he was forced to leave the land where his parents were because of the vile thing that he
did. So now he was wondering around and that's what he, that's what he did. And that's where
he married his wife. He didn't find her there. It was just his sister or cousin. It says, it says
he knew, he knew his wife. He knew his wife in the land of Odd, you know, that that's where they,
it was like, like our brother in his image says here, again, finish reading chapter four and start
reading chapter five. Sheesh, start reading context, Evos. So yeah, what you said there
was perfect. I'm glad you picked out those comments, brother Matt, because those are
typically the, I mean, even theistic evolutionists and old earth creationists are using those
arguments today in 2021 as if they haven't been dealt with. Right, Matt? Isn't that amazing?
It is. Yeah. I mean, but that's just how I think little they actually follow what's going on.
They're there. They want the easy way out, right? They're, they're looking for easy people though.
They, they screw up targeting our channel as he's going to realize. But I think that's why we like
to do the attacking, right? Because they're just out there just promoting absolute nonsense.
And that's fine. I mean, you can believe whatever you want. There's no problem with that. But when
you're going around saying that we're wrong, when you don't know anything about it, you're going to
get destroyed. Sorry. It goes, here's a funny one. The guy is clearly intelligent talking about SFT.
It just baffles me that intelligent people can buy into these beliefs and take their
religious fairy tale crap so serious. You didn't investigate anything, right? Like you just went,
oh, I read the Bible. That's obviously true. Okay. Time to close, close up shop. I won't
investigate any other religion or anything else out of that way. And I don't know,
but look at that comment below. Do you have any science qualifications, Dan? I ask on
every video yet you never answered just your abusive sock puppets.
That's pretty funny. I love her anytime. Like that guy said,
SFT is clearly intelligent. I don't know why intelligent people believe this kind of stuff.
They always want to say, they say that about Dr. Kurt Wise, Richard Dawkins did. It's like,
if you're intelligent or you're educated or you got the qualifications, but you believe the Bible,
then you're just religiously motivated or that's the only reason why, you know, it's just,
it's funny how they resort to that. I just, like Dr. Jensen, we point out that he's, you know,
Harvard graduate, he's got testable predictions and they'll just scoff at the fact that,
you know, they'll say that he's religiously motivated or we aren't really interested in
the truth. And it's, I mean, we see those all the time, Matt. So that's,
that's funny. It's kind of ironic to me because they admit that you're smart,
but then admit that you probably don't know what you're talking about. It's like, well,
you just admitted he's smart and now you don't want to investigate why he believes what he
believes. You're just going to just take your hook, line and sinker because the majority believe
it. I mean, the majority, if you were going to like a thousand years ago, you would have followed
majority and the earth would have been flat. So you'd have been a flat earther. So you don't just
follow the majority. I mean, you just, you just go with where, like you go, okay, this makes sense
and it makes more sense than this one. And you should probably go, even if you don't want to
believe, because that's where we come in, right? We just go, well, I mean, obviously this can't
be true. We're looking at one thing and it's, and the evidence is telling us the other. So what are
we going to do? We're just going to say, okay, well, why is all the evidence say this? I mean,
if evolution were true and humans have existed, we'll just give them the benefit of the doubt.
Humans went through a bottleneck in Africa 200,000 years ago. They've been branching out and spreading
around the world ever since. They've been diversifying and went around the world and humans
were repopulating. Okay. So now you want me to believe that humans went around the world and
diversified. And for 195,000 years, they didn't do anything that we're doing today. And then all
of a sudden in the last 5,000 years, boom, mathematics, boom, civilization, boom, boom,
oldest trees in the earth, point right there, boom, the lifespan of recorded history, 5,000,
writing systems, 5,000 years ago, all civilizations seem to pop up 5,000 years ago,
more, more examples. Genealogy is going right back. I mean, you want me to believe that humans
worldwide just did all of that separately. Didn't know anything about any math, calendars,
writing systems, languages, nothing. Didn't know any of that stuff. Then 5,000 just randomly,
exactly when we say the flood happened, you want me to believe that that's not true now. I'm sorry,
that takes a whole nother level of faith that I don't have. It's just, I can't do it. I have
to go with logic. Logic wins, I'm sorry, every time. You nailed it there. We don't have enough
faith to believe in what people like Simon and Dan are pushing. As you can tell, we just hit the
two and a half hour mark, so we're going to wind it down here so people can go to LPP's channel.
But as you can see here, we put forth arguments in favor of our position and also arguments
debunking the universal common ancestry model with the support from a number of papers,
a number of sources. I mean, Matt alone has flashed a dozen or more onto the screen.
So if Simon and Dan wants to respond, he's got a lot of work to do, and I have a feeling he
doesn't want to do the work. Therefore, a video like this will probably go untouched,
but it's going to show that people like Simon and Dan, people like these popular YouTube atheists,
they don't have science. They don't have science. They got pseudoscience. We got the science. It's
a good time to be a creationist, guys. So be proud of that. Comments coming in. Christ has risen.
Amen. Tomorrow, we're not going to be doing any streams. Next week starts the Genesis flood week.
So yeah, I want to thank everybody for the amazing, amazing support, the super stickers,
the super chats. This was a lot of fun. Matt and I, we're going to pick out another video soon
to be back with you guys and have some fun again like this. So we'll pick one out. Simon and Dan
actually did another video on us a while ago. Maybe we'll get to that one next. So thanks,
everybody, for joining. We still got 50 people in the chat, so it's great to see that you guys
are enjoying it. We could probably do this all night, but let's all head on over to LPP's
after show. Matt, you got any final words, final thoughts, brother?
No, just a reminder, if anybody wants to see those things that we brought up, the thing SFT
was talking about, if you want to see Eve's sequence, you can go to creationist clothing
and go to the article section. And I've tried to compile everything there, and I took the notes
out of the top of the studies, like the abstracts, and give it a little example. And then if you want,
you can click on it and go to the study and read the technical aspects. I don't want to bore
people because some people might not even understand it. So you can read through and
grasp what's going on. And then if you want, jump over to the study. It's got a bunch of different
links there, a lot of the things that we covered today. And if you want anything, just leave a
message under this video below when this thing goes live, and we'll send the links to anything,
Mendel's accountant, the patriarchal drive. We can supply all of the evidence for all of this.
So that's it. Awesome. Great last words. A couple of people asking, got here a little bit late.
Yeah, we've been going for two and a half hours. So make sure you rewatch right from the beginning.
I think we had like two minutes there of technical difficulties before we got her going.
So I think we might even just remove that two minutes. We can do that through the studio,
and then it can all go smooth. And the other thing was, yeah, some people were asking,
what video was it from Simon and Dan? I just added it into the description box,
Simon and Dan's video. You can watch that video, then watch this video. We do play it,
actually. We played the whole thing. So we hit every point. And yeah, that being said,
guys, God bless everybody. Thanks so much for joining us. Thanks so much for the support.
We'll see you guys Monday for the Genesis Flood Week, and SFT and Map Man are out.