Exposing Jimbob's Dishonesty About Evolution

Added: 2026-05-05

[00:00:08]If the gene Jim Bob, would you say that if the the genetics um wasn't the way it was, then that would be disconfirming evidence of evolution? No, I would say the thing the thing you have to delineate Peterson is the distinction of how you would tell that genetics similar in similarity in genes can very well mostly be just similarity in function. You have to separate similarity in function as the explanation versus that they're similar because they came from each other. You don't have a methodology for distinguishing whether things are similar in the DNA is similar because of function. They're functionally similar.

[00:00:53]They code and and for the same behavior or they that that gene actually had to pass itself down that they're actually my great great great great grandparents.

[00:01:02]The banana is related to me actually like like back in time because it shares DNA that codes for a similar function.

[00:01:12]>> Just you have to separate the two. Just real quick, Jim Bob, if humans shared more DNA with carrots than chimpanzees, then don't you think that would be extremely strong disisconfirming evidence of evolution?

[00:01:26]>> Uh, well, what what are you referring to as DNA? Because you can you can take a >> what?

[00:01:32]>> Well, I'll tell you. I'll tell you what.

[00:01:34]Look, do you know the difference between examining DNA similarities between a banana and examining the DNA that we look at for a paternity test?

[00:01:46]Uh, you look at a smaller percentage of the overall DNA when you do a paternity test. We can just do genes because they just look at genes and they only look at some of the genes because there's a statistical whatever whatever. If we shared more genes, what whatever your criteria is, if we shared more genes with carrots than we do with chimpanzees, wouldn't that be overwhelmingly strong evidence that >> Let me just hold on. Let me correct you cuz this is important. That >> That's my question.

[00:02:13]>> No, no, no. Because you the re I I asked you a question so that you can separate between two things. It's not just a small section. The STR is not just a small section. It's a specific kind of section. And we have access to the parents. That's why we can test paternity. The other thing you're looking at is the overall DNA, which is not the same as the SR, the S str. Okay?

[00:02:36]So, you can't you can't just say, "Oh, things are similar and look uh you know, the reason we can uh do paternity tests and they're effective is because similar DNA means I come from daddy, right?" No, that's a particular thing you're looking at. When you look at overall DNA, you're looking at the the bases, right? You're looking at ACGT. All you're saying is that the fundamental of all living creatures has a base. That's like saying this. Um, you look at a town and there's a lot of houses and all of the houses share something in common. They have a foundation made of bricks, right? It doesn't hold on. It doesn't follow.

[00:03:12]>> Organisms pass on their DNA. Houses don't make new houses.

[00:03:17]>> Look, you need we know how heredity works.

[00:03:20]>> No, no, no, no. DNA has You already have to have populations for the DNA.

[00:03:27]I don't understand how that's relevant.

[00:03:28]Can I just Can I just get a yes? If we shared more genes with carrots than chimpanzees, wouldn't that be very strong evidence that evolution is false?

[00:03:37]>> Not necessarily. Because evolution, the way you're actually talking about it, the thing you need to defend with evolution isn't whether or not things have similarities. Dude, evolution is a process that you have to use the four main components. We only covered two the four mechanisms and you have to explain how things change and and and vary how a pacetus becomes a whale not assert that it happen similarities in in your nature similarities in things like if you take a if you take one of those uh PCR test hold on if you take a PCR test do you know that you could eventually find similarities if you increase the the amplification you'll eventually find a crossover in structural similarity eventually. with the lines. Yeah. But they won't all overlap, >> right? Yeah. But the thing is, all you're saying is things that are similar, they have structural similarities. In this case, DNA. Is DNA a structure?

[00:04:35]>> You can call it that.

[00:04:36]>> Okay. Is it physical?

[00:04:38]>> It's made of atoms. Yeah.

[00:04:39]>> Okay. Cool. So, you look at similarities between animals and you come to the conclusion, right? Evolution posits that entire categories of animals change over time into new categories of animals.

[00:04:50]Right?

[00:04:51]>> Pointing to pointing to similarities in animals doesn't give you the process of evolution. Dude, it Jim Bob, why is it that if you compare the DNA of two humans, you can tell how closely related they are. But you can't do that with two different species.

[00:05:10]closely related because there's a static thing called a human. That's why it's nature is uni. It's there's a uni look the answer to the question is hilarious because evolution denies you can't now you're just now you're just retreating to semantic. No, no. I'm You're >> there is nothing you can say where you're asking DNA to tell how closely related different humans are to each other, but it magically stops working across species. This is totally possibly for >> No, hold on a second. Hold on a second.

[00:05:47]All species have fundamental building blocks, right?

[00:05:51]>> Yes.

[00:05:52]>> That's the basis. That is the foundation.

[00:05:55]You can build different things on top of foundations, right?

[00:06:00]>> This isn't how life works. Life passes on a hereditary molecule.

[00:06:04]>> You have to exist to pass something down. A house in this case is the analogy has to exist in a way to pass down any traits. Right? So what I'm asking you is if the foundation of all of life, they all share components, the fundamentals at the base level, they share foundation, right? Structural foundation. That's the baseline. Now when you look at a similarity between things, of course you look at the baseline and you say they all share the similarity at the baseline. But when you start making other comparisons above above the foundation like the same walls or the same wall color or the same type of roof in this analogy, right? There are things you can >> because the shared genes are so incredibly specific. There's no reason like your house analogy >> fails for the reasons I gave earlier.

[00:06:55]There's no reason that a if evolution is false then dolphin fins and shark fins the genetic compon underlying component.

[00:07:05]>> Okay, let me just let me respond. Let me respond.

[00:07:08]Last word. use I want to use the vestibular system just briefly here. Um when when you looked at it um >> uh like I said this system is is highly complex and functional and task oriented and it's so precise in what it does. I didn't even get to the crystals. There's crystals in this system as well that weigh down on things and it's very precise and if it's off a little bit um it fails. Um, and so the question I had is like from your view, if you were to take a purely random mutation approach, you'd have to say that random mutation started the pathway toward this thing being generated, right?

[00:07:50]Uh, yeah, I would I would say that um if I did a little bit of Google searching, I could find some stuff in the fossil record for the development of the inner ear. Um I I'm not going to do that here because I that would be kind of boring.

[00:08:07]But >> okay, >> so what I can point to what I know off the top of my head is so if a trait is evolved then it should go through stages. Um it should like the modern forms of things we should expect to see kind of like transitional variations of it. Now again, I'm pretty ignorant about the fossil record when it comes to the vestibular system, but um there are uh lampres and and hag. Well, it's just lampres. So, they're a really disgusting eel looking fish, but they don't have jaws. They just have a sucker. So, they're an incredibly ancient and uh archaic body type, but they do have bones like we do. They have uh semic-ircular canals, but they only have two. We have three. So, I mean, that's that's the only thing I can think of off the top of my head as far of the as far as those. But yeah, I mean, there are many things. We'll never have the complete picture of of how it happened.

[00:09:07]But when you see in nature, different variations of the same thing, less complex versions and more complex versions, I think that that actually is pretty excellent evidence uh that it evolved. I have a few more things on this, but I'll I'll let you respond to that.

[00:09:20]>> Okay. Well, it sounds like you're saying there's other things that have similar uh shadow ghost structures uh in the past, and maybe those are simple forms.

[00:09:30]And so, if there's simple forms and there's a more complex form, you can imagine that a simple form of it could actually through random mutation produce into a more complex form of it. Yeah, it would be unreasonable to think that our vestibular system, the mamalian one with three semi-ircular canals would have could have just uh been produced uh by the random even with natural selection the the random thing >> uh just in its in its full-fledged state instead we would expect to see transitions and uh I can think of at least one with the with the >> lamprey. Yeah, I'm not under the uh impression that the the your position to defend this is that um random mutation built this thing and and it was like a a bunch of elves building it and they finished it. Um rather than rather there has to be um sort of a provenence of this item, right? This is like an item in the in the if there was like a a showcase room. um here's an item that does something in the in in here in this body and it has to have a past from the evolutionary view and so but the view is that random mutation itself that's the first mechanism that actually starts building this it's a it's a building process correct >> uh evolution is a building process I mean you can say that I guess yeah but that that's kind of weird because that that entails that evolution is this one thing when really it's a combination of things. Well, for this specifically like you look at the you look at that vestibular system inside there and the tubes and I mentioned that there's fluid inside the tubes and has to be a specific ratio of pro like uh for it to be properly electro like it it basically uses electricity to conduct to receive pressures in the form of sound to send to the brain in a meaningful way where the brain can interpret it. But here's here's what I'll ask you. Is it this fully formed vestibular system from the evolutionary view is is incidental.

[00:11:41]Correct.

[00:11:43]>> Um it's incidental in the sense that there's no reason that any organism had to develop a vestibular system. I was I was jotting down notes while you said this because this is something that people say uh quite often. Um where did that actually go? Um, uh, so when you say something like how did it just happen to create this, uh, vestibular system, like I said, it didn't have to. So like the the thing I wrote down is, you know, why can't goats fly? Wouldn't it be really awesome if goats could fly? Well, we're we're not the ones that get to say this is the way that you evolve. If you if you don't do it this way then then you don't function in your environment then it's no good anymore or the the organism won't survive. No I mean there's uh evolution doesn't have any foresight it doesn't have any teiology.

[00:12:40]>> Right. Right. So but if it doesn't have teiology then use would you admit that use of the word optimization is just a it's not really optimization it's just accidental optimization like organisms don't optimize they just accidentally change and it's just a l it's just lucky that the that that accidental change is advantageous in in contrast to the environment itself. It's just like oh that was a happy accident.

[00:13:06]>> I mean you can yeah I was going to say serendipitous that's what that means.

[00:13:10]You can say that uh but it seems like you're kind of just saying the organism doesn't optimize the environment the filtration process mechanism whatever we want to call it of natural selection does that but it's but it still occurs.

[00:13:25]I mean we it it's very hard to imagine how this process would have created a complex system like a vestibular system but we know for a fact that this system happens today. The reason antibiotic resistance occurs, the reason viruses mutate to be able to jump across species, they're not trying to do any of that. It is just um uh for ones because of the genetic variation within them.

[00:13:53]It's just innate in some of them that some of the time >> they evolve down a certain pathway. Now, what we do is we tend to look at the end product and say, "Oh, that's the only way it could have happened." No, it could have happened a million different ways. Co didn't have to evolve. It it could have evolved to infect cats instead of humans, for example. It happened to evolve a different way. Go ahead.

[00:14:14]>> Yeah. Yeah. I'm just saying it's just all of that's incidental, though. So, even the defense thing that you just mentioned, the ability for the body to have an immune system that gets triggered when there's some intruder, right? The the the triggering of the immune system that jolts the body into resp responding, right? that system itself in addition to the vestibular system and everything else from the evolutionary view it's purely incidental.

[00:14:40]>> Yes.

[00:14:41]>> As far as this production of it.

[00:14:43]>> Yeah. But I I don't think that's a problem. So for example the what the vestibular system does is it's your sense of balance. Um, you have fluid called lymph and you have autoliths which are the little stones and they they brush up against hair cells and when they brush against it that may like if you hold a candle and you move the candle lags behind what's in your in it does exactly that. I know you know it.

[00:15:06]I'm telling the audience.

[00:15:07]>> Yeah. Yeah. And the other side just so Yeah. And the other side is is a mirror of the same system but it actually serves a slightly different compatible purpose. Right. The other ear. Well, they do the they do the same thing, but they're they're mirrored. Yeah.

[00:15:21]>> For different Yeah. For different they compensate for different things and but they're the same function, but for different uh um they balance us in different ways. And so that's that's the thing is like if it's the case I do think >> let me let me let me get something out here real quick cuz um if it's the case that oh yeah organisms wanting to know the difference between up from down uh left like want to know I'm sideways then you have to evolve a vestibular system.

[00:15:48]Well actually you don't. Uh moths for example uh I don't know how common this is in other insects but moths uh they have a completely different system for this and we just discovered this. The reason moths fly around endlessly a light bulb is because they have what's called a dorsal light reflex. So when light hits their back that tells them that's where the sun is and so it triggers their body to just automatically balance upward. Like you don't have to think about your sense of balance. you just do it innately and mods have that. So that's how they can tell up and down. They do it with the sun. So if this is a problem and we have a if or if not really a problem, but like if the vestibular system serves a function and we're trying to say it could have only happened this way, then how the heck did it happen independently a different way? I think that's way stronger a way stronger indication that yes it is an incidental uh product of a serendipitous process and it could have been a million different things. You said the language analogy doesn't work because you were talking about the reference the apple never well actually I think you should think of it as in terms of um >> what makes an apple what an apple is.

[00:17:05]It's the the genes in it and what makes words and language what they are. it it fundamentally well what makes a language what it is at the fundamental level are phonms and to an extent grammar but whatever um and and the words. So just as microscopic uh the the genes generation by generation just small portions of the genes in the gene pool the composition the ratios or whatever uh change over time just like fragments of our language change over time then yeah that that does actually produce the change because the apple is dependent upon its genes to be the way it is. So you can't just say apple is apple like you're treating that as a separately existing thing from its genes >> when the only reason it is the way it is is because of the the DNA.

[00:17:55]>> It don't couldn't you and I you know establish a weekend where we invite people and we literally in two days change and make up an entire language with our intent.

[00:18:10]>> Um this has literally happened before. I know >> especi especially with sign language.

[00:18:16]>> I know. So if that's the case, this analogy fails because language itself doesn't take doesn't need a long time to evolve into different things. We could by our intent we could just change language because symbols aren't reality.

[00:18:29]Symbols are just references to things in the world. The the the reason this fails again the language fails is because it's a category distinction. symbols and sounds are not identical to the things they're referring to. Evolution is arguing about the things in the world.

[00:18:47]Reality itself, elephants, uh, lions, people, these are these are things in the world. They're not symbols. They're not sounds. These are things in the world. You're claiming a thing in the world in its category eventually through random mutation changes and and produces something in the future that's not it.

[00:19:07]So can you tell me any example of why we would believe this? Can you give us any example where something actually produces something in inside of uh you know random mutation sexual selection that it's not? Anything that produces something it comes from the thing that's produced actually comes from something it's not.

[00:19:27]>> Okay. I wrote that down so that I know 100% that that's the next thing we go to. But I'm going to go back to the language thing uh just briefly because you're you're calling it a category error, but it's because you're comparing the wrong things. In my analogy, the language is analogous to the organism.

[00:19:48]Uh you keep bringing up how the language references something. Nope. The language is analogous to the organism. The words are analogous to the individual genes or like nucleotides of its DNA. Those are the only two things to compare. So much like English is not the same thing as the word banana. Um it's the totality of the lexicon that is English. An organism is not one of its genes because we share like for our hemoglobin gene.

[00:20:21]Chimpanzees have the exact same one. Uh but a chimpanzee is not a human. So you can't you can't reduce it. You have to look at the totality of it. And it as the words microscopically change, as the lexicon changes a microscopic bit generation by generation, it doesn't change. It doesn't become a new language in any one particular generation. But eventually once the whole lexicon changes it is or to a enough we could say then it does become a new language just like once the the the gene composition of the population has changed enough then it does become a new species. So I think it actually is basically a perfect analogy.

[00:21:03]You're you're adding something that's not part of the analogy to try to call it a category error.

[00:21:09]>> How do you distinguish when a category changes and you say you can't. So, how could you say the sentence, yes, the categories of animals through random mutation and and natural selection change packetus to a whale in 15 million years? And I go, but what's the cat? How do you know the category changed?

[00:21:25]>> Well, because we have overwhelming uh fossil and genetic evidence that Pakisetus is the ancestor of whales.

[00:21:33]>> Well, no, that's question begging because the thing that's in question is >> it's not.

[00:21:38]>> It is. It is. That's just affirming the thing that's in question. To determine it's actually the ancestor is to say just restate the position that the pacetus is an early form of an animal that through successive generations and random mutation produced in a long form produced what we now know the whale is.

[00:21:57]Right? That's what you're saying happened. Right? Stating that it happened again because you looked at similarity in anatomy doesn't actually tell me where the transition of category actually occurs.

[00:22:09]>> No, because uh we didn't come up with the idea that Pachyetus is the ancestor of whales before we found it. We found it and then uh like forensics work, people connected the dots. I mean this is exactly like forensics work. event. At first they they use physical evidence and clues from the environment and then uh today they would hopefully be able to uh use DNA evidence to pinpoint look we claimed that uh James Coons is the person that did this and then we find James' DNA there. Uh that's on question begging. We didn't come up with a new story that arbitrarily just confirmed the original story.

[00:22:53]>> There's difference there. We said there has to be this evidence and this evidence is it. So we have overwhelming supportive evidence.

[00:23:00]>> Hold on a second. The another analogy that doesn't work because something like a a crime or a murder happening. You have access to the scene. You have access to back knowledge of what murders are. You can recreate the murder and that's what forensics does. I took it in community college. I probably should have continued it. The reality is you can reinvent and test and do these things over. They literally wave axes with fake blood to recreate this stuff.

[00:23:26]They shoot bullets at glass to recreate angles. We can play with this stuff and we can access James uh information, his DNA, his fingerprints, his height, his shoes, his clothes, his hair, and we can see if his his body transplanted itself on that scene in so many ways, right?

[00:23:47]This is not the same as there once was a a land cow the size of a wolf. We connected the dots through anatomy to to make the claim that the land cow through reproduction turned into a whale through through just genetic. And I go, how how would you know that? Like how would you even test uh how would you even explain that through just the mechanisms that we're we're covering? Like honestly, how would you explain how genetic mutation, random mutation, produces variations that it builds entirely new body plans that ends in 15 million years as a whale? How would you even explain that?

[00:24:27]>> Well, I mean, we kind of know how that happens because they're they're called homeotic genes. Uh, and we can see the telltale evidence of this occurring because the uh James, can I share my screen again?

[00:24:44]>> I'll try to I can talk about whales for a really long time, but I'll try to make it short.

[00:24:48]>> We'll go into the Q&A maybe in about 10 to 15 minutes. And folks, if you haven't yet, hit that like button. We do appreciate your support.

[00:24:57]>> So, uh, this is a Pachyetus right here.

[00:24:59]And that's an ambulus there. Now, Pakisetus like it obviously it had legs, right? So, um but we think it's the ancestor of modern whales and modern whales don't have hind legs, right? So, if there's a transitional form, then what we would expect to find are whales in the fossil record that have fairly well-developed hind limbs but didn't really use them for much. And that exists. Basilosaurus, it's really small, but the picture on the bottom labeled A, that's Basillosaurus. It was a massive uh whale. Like nobody would argue that Basilosaurus isn't a whale, but what the heck is Basillosaurus doing with these hind legs and they were so you can I don't know is does my cursor show up?

[00:25:44]>> I don't see it on my screen. But >> I see it.

[00:25:46]>> I see it on the Zoom though. No, but I don't think a >> Zoom but not on YouTube.

[00:25:50]>> The audience does see it.

[00:25:51]>> Oh, I do see it.

[00:25:52]>> Oh, they do see it. Okay. So, right here where I'm circling proportionally, that's how large the hind limbs are. not used for any kind of locomotion obviously. And even I would argue even worse is Darudon right there. So letter B. It's much smaller than Basilosaurus.

[00:26:07]But look at these legs. I mean they're just such tiny pathetic little things.

[00:26:11]But there's an there's a hallmark in the skeleton of these extinct ancient definitely whales. Like nobody argues these aren't whales. The question is are these also the ancestors of modern whales? Well, they have this bone in their ankle called uh the talis and it takes on a form that they call the astralus.

[00:26:32]Um, and pachyetus and ambulitus have it too. Um, and then we see it in these eocin whales. Well, today the only other animals that have it are even toaded hooved animals, unullet.

[00:26:45]>> Okay. But can I can I just stop you there for a second cuz you're looking at similarities. By the way, the little whale thing uh little whale thing that you think is a knee or a shoulder or the remnant of a leg that actually does have a function. It helps them during mating and orientation in swimming. But you have a much for >> much I know because it has a function for swimming and mating. So the thing is it changed over time.

[00:27:06]>> No, you're No, that's what you're trying to prove that it changed over time. You can't just say that it did because because things that are similar looking, right, and have similar functions. It would make sense if they have a similar function that they might show up and look similar. By the way, we have eyeballs and other animals that are not like us at all have eyeballs. If I found eyeballs, >> Yeah, but there's a genetic test for that.

[00:27:29]>> No. No. If there wasn't a genetic test and I just looked at anatomy and I just saw eyeballs, I wouldn't come to the conclusion that because of the eyeballs and where they are that that that must be an early ancestor of mine because they have eyeballs. That's just one similar thing and this it's similar because it's functionally similar.

[00:27:45]>> Uh no, >> okay, let me ask you this. Let me ask eyeballs are a bad example because eyes have their eyes have evolved 40 different times in the animal kingdom.

[00:27:55]Like the mollisk eye is completely different from ours. So we don't look at those and think that it's a ancestral.

[00:28:03]>> How do you look Peter Peterson, how do you determine whether something's similar because it's functionally similar? It just shares a function so that necessarily it looks similar or how do you determine that or or whether or not it's because one thing turned into another?

[00:28:20]>> Yeah, you look at the you look at the genes. So, I'll stop sharing my screen here in just a second.

[00:28:23]>> You don't have access to the Pacetus gen, >> but we look at Well, yeah, but we have access to its its skeleton. And uh >> you don't have access to his genes, dude.

[00:28:34]>> Yes, I know. But we can tell what kind of animal Pacetus was from its skeleton.

[00:28:40]And then we still have these kinds of animals today. And then so we test it.

[00:28:43]So all this evidence says, look, yeah, maybe it's just a coincidence. And there's many other skeletal things I could talk about, but I'm not going to waste time on it. We could say yes, maybe it is just a coincidence because of convergent evolution and all that.

[00:28:56]But then what we did was we said okay well if if this is actually what happened then the even toad unullet are the only other animals that have this.

[00:29:05]So test the DNA of whales and unullet and if they're the most closely related then that's overwhelming confirming evidence of >> of shared ancestry.

[00:29:16]>> It's not.

[00:29:16]>> And that's exactly what happened.

[00:29:18]>> I'll tell you why. Because the answer is still unanswered. How do you determine that the similarity in DNA which is a similarity in the function of things like there's a DNA uh marker for where a leg grows or or a knee bending or whatever the growth of a thing bending right elbows knee joints if there is for anything that happens in the body there's necessarily an instruction manual that's in the form of DNA to instruct what it does where it where it does it how it does it because animals share similar composition and instruction manuals like it's all written in the same code basically. How does it follow that they come from each other as opposed to oh similar function it's not it doesn't it doesn't occur to me as a coincidence that similar function would look when you look at the instruction for that function right a banana is a good example people say oh we're related to banana but when you really look at what the DNA you're looking at that's similar what's similar is the function of that DNA in the banana it's it doesn't follow that I come from a banana or we're ancestors to a banana merely because we find similar code in in it that does a similar instruction uh procedure for for the organism like that the jump you're making and this is why I asked for methodology if you agree that there could be similarity in DNA based on solely on function that they share a similar function if that's the case you're going to have to give an additional methodology to determine whe whether or not they have some sort of close relatedness chronologically like one comes downstream from the other because it they don't follow that that that doesn't follow because of what I said it it is it is it true that DNA could have similar function >> between two things but not not come from the same thing.

[00:31:10]>> Um yes in in certain contexts that's the case but this really doesn't work. So for example uh it it really really does not work uh the way you think it does.

[00:31:21]So, for example, sharks and dolphins have tail flukes, but if we look at the DNA controlling the the genes that form those parts of their bodies, they're not even remotely similar. The dolphin DNA for its tail fluke for those homie homeobox genes in that location are going to be vastly more similar to a kangaroo than to a shark. So this whole well the that the structure looks similar and they come from simar. So they come from kangaroos.

[00:31:54]>> They don't come from kangaroos. They're more closely related.

[00:31:57]>> Yeah. Yeah. No, that that proves my point.

[00:31:59]>> Them and kangaroos have a common ancestor.

[00:32:00]>> No. No. I think you misinterpreted me.

[00:32:02]Just because I didn't say that anything that's similar functionally has to share similar DNA because you would put dolphins not in the same categories as sharks, right?

[00:32:15]Well, they're they're not mammals. They there's something that they're in the same category as, but >> yeah. So, it's not it's still it kind of shows my point is that things that have similarity in in uh their instruction manual. It's not an it's not a surprise that similarity in instruction manual might produce similarity in features, functions, right? Uh just because something what is it? Raccoon hands.

[00:32:40]They look kind of like ours, like smaller but pretty close looking or or there's a variety of things that look that have uh wings and the structure and the movement of wings. Uh just because they share similar features doesn't mean they have the same DNA um informing the features. But if they do have similar DNA informing function, it's not a surprise that the features and the function are similar. Like it's downstream from the from the instruction itself. That makes sense to me.

[00:33:08]>> You got it. This one from Austin Sims strikes again says, "Jim, are whales mammals?" Yes, that's game over for evolution denial. Explain why an ocean animal has land mammal anatomy inside it, including placenta.

[00:33:25]That's just that's question begging. All you're saying is most of the mammals I know are are on land, therefore the whale came from the land. That's all you're saying. But that needs an argument.

[00:33:35]>> Well, they were they were just saying a whale is a mammal. So, >> well, it wasn't always a mammal.

[00:33:40]>> Give a give a just for Well, yeah, it was. Give a >> No, it wasn't. No, no, no. Planet Peterson was a mammal.

[00:33:47]>> You admitted that mammals come from not mammals.

[00:33:52]>> Uh, yeah, but whales never were mammals.

[00:33:56]>> Your ancestors are not your ancestors aren't what you are.

[00:34:00]>> Whale whales come from non mammals, right?

[00:34:03]>> Yeah, but whales have always been mammals.

[00:34:07]>> Really? How did when did they become mammals?

[00:34:10]>> They So the uh direct ancestor of a whale is also a mammals.

[00:34:16]>> When did it become a whale?

[00:34:18]>> Whales have never not been mammals.

[00:34:21]>> When did it become a whale?

[00:34:23]>> When did what become a whale?

[00:34:24]>> A whale.

[00:34:25]>> When did a whale become a whale? They never weren't whales.

[00:34:29]>> What are you talking about? There. If a pacetus became a whale over successive generations, you have to tell me when did a whale become a whale then?

[00:34:37]>> Oh, um I I don't know what the number for when they evolved is. But no, the question is is a whale a mammal? Not is it not is a whale a whale? So if if you don't think a whale is a mammal, then what is it?

[00:34:50]>> No, no, no. The the whale is a mammal, but inside of its cate if you go back far enough inside of its full category.

[00:34:59]So, is a whale a mammal?

[00:35:01]>> A whale? Currently, we call it a mammal.

[00:35:03]But what I'm showing is that all of your taxonomy, your taxonomy is completely arbitrary.

[00:35:10]>> No, just the labels are arbitrary.

[00:35:12]>> No, the actual No, the actual things, right? Data itself is particular, right?

[00:35:18]Nominal. You have to collect data.

[00:35:20]>> Mammals or whales breathe air, have a placenta, >> diaphragm, all they have all the mamalian traits. No, I understand. But the term mammal is completely arbitrary as a category, right?

[00:35:33]>> All of the words you're saying are >> No, no, no. The universal No, no. The universal No, no. The universal The universal mammal itself is an arbitrary term to refer to a select group of animals currently in their current state.

[00:35:49]>> Nothing you just said means anything because words are all declared by arbitration.

[00:35:54]>> No, no. The reference mammal doesn't actually exist. The universal category doesn't exist in nature, right?

[00:36:01]>> Nothing you just said means anything cuz we decided all of these words have meaning.

[00:36:05]>> That means arbitrary. Yeah. Yeah. So the the term category the category look at Peterson. You're admitting it. The category mammal isn't actually found in nature.

[00:36:19]>> The category mammal isn't found in nature.

[00:36:21]>> Yeah. There's there's not a thing called mammal. the category found in nature.

[00:36:25]>> There's nothing called anything in nature. We're the ones that if we didn't exist, nothing would have labels anymore.

[00:36:33]>> So, this isn't an evolution thing. This is a now nothing nothing has truth value because all words are arbitrary.

[00:36:40]>> I'm talking about the reference >> mammals. The category of mammal is not the only arbitrary arbitrarily existing category in the world. So, if you're going to say there's no such thing as mammals, I'm going to say everything that is the words you're using doesn't exist. Do you know what nominalism means?

[00:36:55]>> Nominalism is the belief that um uh things are just conglomer like collections conglomerations.

[00:37:03]>> It's a denial. It's a denial of universals that they actually exist in any meaningful way. All there is is particulars. Under the evolutionary view, everything you point to is just a particular. So putting it in a category.

[00:37:15]So when you see a whale and you go, "That's a mammal." You're actually making a philosophical jump that evolution itself can't give you.

[00:37:25]>> Evolution describes all of the characteristics that mammals have.

[00:37:30]>> Yeah. But they're particulars, right? So what I'm saying is the view of evolution is nominal. That means you only have access to particular things. And you going, "Hey, that's a mammal, right?

[00:37:41]You're actually doing philosophy."

[00:37:45]I I wouldn't really say that. If anybody ever labels anything at any point, no matter what they're doing, they're doing philosophy. Um I don't know if I really grant that, but we're going to >> we're just going to go in circles on this. So, >> you got it. Thank you very much for your question coming in from Austin Sim Strikes again. All the data fits the model. We know it does. That's a real headache for Jim. That's the model that will predict all future data slashnew fields of inquiry.

[00:38:21]>> Okay, I'll just ask Peterson this. Uh, can two models share the same data and have it fit, but none of them are correct?

[00:38:33]>> Can two but none of it >> can two models have access to the same data, right? And the data actually makes sense like you know philosophically you're like oh this kind of data makes sense. Isn't it possible that two datas have access to the same model but neither of the models are correct even though the data seems to fit the models.

[00:38:50]>> That seems literally impossible because if you take the definition that true is that which corresponds to reality >> and both mod in both models the data fits then by definition it's true. So they can't be false. What if they contradict each other and they both share the same data and they fit the the data fits each other's models and they contradict?

[00:39:14]>> Uh well then that's going to be something like I could I could invent this is last Thursdayism. I I could just say no the Big Bang is false. The Bible's also false. The entire universe was created last Thursday and it just looks like this.

[00:39:28]>> So that's an example of what you're talking about. But I I find this to be solopistic and >> No, no, no. It's really simple. It's really simple.

[00:39:37]>> If I imagine a world that was engineered by some some being, it wasn't even God, just some being. And I imagine a world that that that looked like this and there was all these animals and there was coding found instruction manuals found in the animals and they were all similar in the way they were coded and they all needed air and most of them needed air and then and food and all this stuff. That data actually matches quite well the idea that this is like some crafted little little place, right?

[00:40:05]It's all the same data as you. It it matches. It's consistent. It doesn't mean that it's true because it's consistent. This world is consistent with with an engineered uh through an engineered lens. It doesn't mean it was engineered, but it's consistent.

[00:40:21]>> Yeah. But this explodes all tenable explanations up to infinity. And now nothing has any explanatory meaning anymore.

[00:40:29]>> Welcome to the limits of empiricism.

[00:40:32]>> If you have a model that doesn't produce any kind of predictions, then you don't have an epistemically valuable model.

[00:40:39]>> Welcome to the limits of empiricism >> and a uh model that's relies purely on post hawk. Well, yeah, but the thing I believe in could have magically done it that way.

[00:40:50]>> There's just nothing. No, because we make tests and all of our tests have come true. You can't test the You can't test a pacetus turn into a whale.

[00:40:59]>> You You look at the genes.

[00:41:01]>> That doesn't tell you similarity in genes.

[00:41:03]>> Yes, it does.

[00:41:04]>> Similarity in gene. You don't have access to the pacetus genes, dude.

[00:41:07]>> I I know, but we have access to >> So, that's a contradiction.

[00:41:11]>> No, it's not because we have access to the DNA that uh it's not a pacetus currently.

[00:41:17]>> Yeah, that's question begging.

[00:41:18]>> No, Jim Bob, I was going to I was going to say this earlier. You're pretending that all of this is post hawk and you have that exactly backwards. The fossil record was constructed over decades and in some cases more than a century before we could independently test the fossil record. You can if the fossil record makes this claim then the genetics would back it up. And then we tested the genetics and it came true. But you're pretending it's all post hawk because we live.

[00:41:50]>> How many fossils? How many fossils that are just the fossils that we have which is by the way um most animals are not vertebrae and the the ones that you have that have preserved bones. How many of those do you have access to gen the genes as opposed to just the phenotype?

[00:42:07]>> I have no idea. A very very very small number.

[00:42:11]>> Yeah. Yeah. That's what I'm saying is like you're you're looking back in time and making this this analysis of a very small amount of data and the amount of data you have doesn't actually accommodate how big of an assumption you're making >> but the assumption is testable.

[00:42:30]Arrin 1113 for both ERVs fossil viruses fixed in our genome when sperm or egg cells got infected. Humans and apes share 200,000 plus ERVs in the exact same spots. The odds of this happening by chance are near zero. Please get your thoughts.

[00:42:54]Yeah, the the the back end of that assumes that it's random, right? So, it's like if all else is equal, it would be random, but you're assuming that it's not deliberate or coded or or or it prefers the ERV prefers that spot for a reason, a biological reason that it inserts itself into that spot and it doesn't try that spot again. um the similarities between um human beings and chimps or apes. Um again, we're back to does DNA similar similarity in DNA is it similar because the function is similar?

[00:43:32]That's the approach I take until I have a reason to believe otherwise. But the ERV argument is silly because I ask these people all the time. Okay, why do you add the last part? The odds are extraordinarily rare for it to show up.

[00:43:45]Well, you know what? Um, first of all, you you can't tell me how you know it it's random. Second of all, guess what?

[00:43:53]It's not more rare or unlikely than all the other things that you need for evolution to have occurred to begin with. Could tell you that.

[00:44:02]>> So, real quick on this, um, uh, like Jim Bob, you talk about functional things, but actually there are known pseudo genes in our DNA. Like there are parts of our DNA that have no function that have mutated to the point where they they don't work at all anymore. And uh we can find exactly the same ones in chimpanzees and common inheritance is the only rational good explanation.

[00:44:28]>> No function and dysfunction would be in the same category. If there's things no reason to put the same dysfunctions in the same place.

[00:44:36]>> Heredit heredity answers that. Nothing else adequate.

[00:44:39]>> Well, no. No. Now you need the apes, the ones that we inherited it from, you need them to inherit it from another animal and so on.

[00:44:47]>> Well, is it isn't it possible there needs to be a point in time where the first insertion happened and it wasn't hereditary?

[00:44:54]>> Well, yeah. Well, with ERVs, yeah, because they actually come from viruses.

[00:44:58]>> Okay, hold on. If your argument is it's only it only could be hereditary except it doesn't need to be hereditary. I don't understand what you're saying. It becomes part of your genome through a virus, but then you pass you pass it on.

[00:45:11]They're retroviruses like HIV. Okay. The virus infects you, but then the the DNA from the virus actually gets into your >> And how would you then how would you determine the origin uh between the the ape and the man having it in a similar place? How would you determine the origin wasn't how would you falsify? How would you determine it wasn't hereditary and passed down by common >> lineage?

[00:45:37]>> Uh if they weren't at the same uh lowi loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc locus points. This is the other thing >> the it's actually not rand like you're right that it's not random cuz our genome is huge but there are only certain sites where the retrovirus can insert yet the question was way off. We share 205 roughly, not 200,000, but of the of the 212 that we have, they have 205 of the same ones. It could have inserted in any of 10 million locations, >> but it didn't.

[00:46:10]>> But but 90 >> Yeah, I know.

[00:46:13]>> 9 whatever% of them are the same.

[00:46:16]>> You're not answering the question. If we if the data is they're in the same spot and your conclusion is they're in the same spot because uh we share a lineage and they're passed down through sexual sexual uh reproduction.

[00:46:30]That's the claim about the data. How do you falsify that it was passed down? How would you know it wasn't passed down if all the data was the same?

[00:46:42]I if they were in completely different on the DNA or if there's there's another there's another way that that or uh the genetics told us that us and chimpanzees are the most closely related. But if you could look in the DNA and find something else in the DNA that would falsify that claim, then that would count. So if chimpanzees shared way more retrovirus insertions with some random animal like a rabbit than they do with us, then that would be disconfirming of the genetic evidence >> directly.

[00:47:16]>> You really didn't answer the question.

[00:47:18]Um we might have to move on. But the once more >> I disagree that I didn't answer it.

[00:47:22]>> The question was if the data was the same, you know what you did? You changed the data. I said if the data was the same, you found an ERV in the same spot and you thought, well, it's in the same spot because we have a common ancestor and through sex we got it. We inherited it.

[00:47:37]>> Then if our genes were completely different, that's how you would that's how you would falsify it.

[00:47:41]>> No, no. If the genes are similar because we have similar function, right?

[00:47:47]>> ERVs genes two different things. I you're you're right that I did change it. My bad. If the ERV data was exactly the same, but the genetic because the ERV data and between chimps and us is the most similar than it is to any other two organisms. So, is that from heredity?

[00:48:04]>> Well, you'd have to test the genes to find out. And if the genes said, "No, you and chimps aren't even close to the same." Then those would be conflicting.

[00:48:12]Those would be contradictions. So, that's yes, you could falsify it. But the exact opposite is what happened. Get a free book, two free audio books, and add free videos by becoming a Patreon member.