Best Evidence for Universal Common Ancestry with SFT, Rawmatt, and Kent Hovind Reading His Script

[@curiousnerdkitteh]

Whoever wrote Kent's script in the 90s needs to be credited.

[@andrewp.7626]

So far this is very informative. Thanks Dan! It’s infuriating how Kent doesn’t even try to engage.

[@CreationMyths]

Doesn't even try. Zero effort.

[@GoD1014]

​@@CreationMyths in fairness, this requires basic understanding he's never had.

[@f.u.m.o.5669]

Infuriating? Yes. Surprising? No.

[@tylersimmons6524]

Kent doesn't try to get engaged but gets pissy when he isn't the focus of the program, even if other creationists are talking, they have to cut them off to "get Kent involved"

[@TerenceClark]

I love how SFT would hand it over to Kent to regurgitate script for a minute then just resume the discussion with you like he wasn't even there, because it was clear he had no interest in answering. Half of what he kept saying was even some variation of "I'm not going to answer that". And the other half was "dogs don't mate with trees".

[@chaotickreg7024]

I'm only 10 minutes in but I'm loving the way they go "Ok shut up Kent" and then have adult conversation for a couple minutes before letting him read his lines. Kent flipping through his powerpoint to find "Using scientific words is not evidence" is so funny, he has no clue what's going on and he's only 10% listening.

[@CreationMyths]

That's exactly what's going on here and it's so funny.

[@RCGamex]

Also, I love the cheeky changing the out put from camera to a text processor to get a point in. 😂

[@CreationMyths]

This is my go-to move in situations like this with biased moderators. You can mute me, but unless you boot me I can still respond in real time. Bonus: If people are reading the text, they aren't listening to whatever nonsense Kent or whoever is spewing.

[@jgone4856]

This was such a great watch. I can't understand how Kent isn't embarrassed by his showing and what he does in general. As a math student, give me all the math Dr. Dan 😂

[@irenafarm]

I’m not a fan of diagnosing pathology based on public behavior….but…narcissism is really difficult to mask by its nature. 🤷🏽‍♀️

[@MrSpleenface]

Honestly, I can understand how Kent isn't embarrassed. All he has to do is convince himself that the exasperation of his opponents is because he can't beat their arguments. What truly baffles me is how Donny isn't embarrassed. Surely he knows having such a buffoon on his side doesn't help his cause. I honestly wonder if he just doesn't have anyone else willing to call themselves "doctor" and come on his program regularly

[@TheDanBidondiShow]

Kent would wreck you and this guy in minutes

[@RCGamex]

I love how they have their tuppence at the definitions 😂 always a great sign that the actual debate isn’t going to go anywhere in a hurry. All the same I really appreciate Dan working hard to hand hold them through how to use a model to make a testable prediction.

[@TheDanBidondiShow]

Key is right, he preaches what the Bible says and shows real evidence proving it. The Bible will win every time. God knows better

[@GuyInAChair3]

At ~ 27:00 Kent says "Donny shut his mic off please" Yet if you watch the video previous you can listen to Dan and STF actually have a conversation, and in the corner of the video you can see Kent scrolling through decades old slides for about 10 minutes trying to find one that fits whatever keywords he's heard. What a child. "Shut him off get someone else"

[@HowToTrainYourDuncan]

Two observations: Kent has such a basal stimulus-response method of “debating.” He picks out a word or image he sort of recognizes and goes straight to whatever slide or part of his script is sort of related to that topic. Or, in the event of a better argument or something he doesn’t have a slide for, reverts to “dogs always produce dogs.” Also, screeching at Donny to cut your mic off is the most childish thing I’ve seen from him, which is *really* saying something. Also, missed opportunity for a joke/counterpoint after Kent’s going off about dogs always looking for other dogs to breed with - easily countered by how many dogs will hump anything that moves. Would have derailed the conversation, but I bet he wouldn’t have a slide for that. ;)

[@nagranoth_]

If screeching for the mic to be turned off is the most childish thing you've seen Kent do that certainly says something: that you haven't seen Kent a lot.

[@irenafarm]

That’s exactly what is happening lol

[@alexnorth3393]

​@stefandingenouts Yes, he's behaved in way more cringe ways.

[@TheDanBidondiShow]

God knows better

[@azophi]

I like how "Kent Hovind's Script" is listed as a contributor 😂

[@the-nick-of-time]

I don't think there are any thoughts going through Kent's head. All he knows is Script, Complain About Other People Talking, and Cover Up Abuse.

[@jamesdownard1510]

@@the-nick-of-time Certainly 90% of Hovind's patter in any given talk or debate is channeling ppts he compiled years ago, sprinkled with occasional blips he cribs from fresh bad sources, like the Harun Yahya post Hovind copied back in 2018 (which I covered in Part 2 of kzbin.info/www/bejne/pXSnkniJeMufea8)

[@irenafarm]

Haha perfection

[@tylerwest719]

The Script actually has more personality than Kent does.

[@kylehardy2235]

😂😂😂

[@kylehardy2235]

8 mins in and I love how Kent is sounding like the one kid in class who just doesn’t get the work, but then refuses to listen. Treating him like a child was a good idea…

[@ClassAves-hv4ps]

Well worth the watch, and I learnt a lot. Though whenever Kent opens his mouth, I just fast forward.

[@chaotickreg7024]

Here's all you missed: Evolution is silly, dogs are in the dog kind, I'm a good teacher.

[@RCGamex]

I also love how Kent doesn’t even understand what’s happening or who brought up what. They asked Dan a question and then get mad he tried to answer it, because they don’t understand how much information is needed to answer their questions from ignorance.

[@maxjohn6012]

Holy moly, the first few minutes alone must have tried your patience. Imagine trying to discuss geometry with them... Dan: Let's make sure we're all on the same page here. A square has four sides, right? Creationists: * visible confusion and chaos *

[@maxjohn6012]

It's absolutely astonishing how much more grown-up the conversation got as soon as Kent left. That guy is such an absolute clown, I'm surprised SFT et al. let him anywhere near their streams... The only explanation that seems plausible to me is that they're banking on some proportion of cheerleaders, in their audience, who respond with joyful whooping and hollering to his unbearably banal and tiresome talking points (if you can even call them that). I don't see how they can imagine they derive *any* other benefit from his "participation" (if you can even call *it* that, either).

[@maxjohn6012]

Glad to see you got into that exact point at the end. Again, a really surprisingly good conversation (although my criticism of Kent applies, to a varying but lesser extent, to all the creationists you were talking with - but clearly when the conversation can take place without distraction, even when the people you're engaging are effectively motivated by ignorance, there's a benefit to the audience at large derived just from you being able to get your points out). It drives me a little nuts that the format doesn't allow you to really pin anyone down and say, "Do you follow my reasoning and evidence? Are you convinced? Why not?" but I get that there's a dual issue of you not being in control of the conversation, together with the real benefit and goal not being centered around convincing your interlocutors but in just being a genuine scientific voice, speaking with depth and nuance - to the audience. Great video :)

[@Leggiebeans]

Dr. Dan I applaud your ability to have incredible patience with creationists . Kent is a raving lunatic. The hypocrisy of Kent telling you to keep your “religion” out of science was INCREDIBLY ironic, considering he refuses to keep HIS religion out of science.

[@nathanielgrey4091]

Gotta start YEC Debunkers Anonymous for the science friends. Y'all are addicts 😂

[@CreationMyths]

It's true! And most YECs won't come on my channel, so if I'm gonna talk with them...limited options.

[@mythosboy]

Hovind has every insentive, economic, psychological, otherwise, to be oblivious. And so he is. Again, your patience is breathtaking. And not just for the Hovind interaction.

[@Mr.AndersonCrosses]

This is, in my opinion the single best bite sized proof for evolution I have ever seen.

[@CreationMyths]

Go forth and propagate.

[@nathanielgrey4091]

Kent could be replaced by a soundboard.

[@jesusgavemeaids]

It doesn't matter what anyone says; Kent always has the same prepared responses. 🤣

[@irenafarm]

And now I kinda want to see that become a thing. And then someone tells Kent, “No we don’t need you. We have all your responses automated without the personality disorder.”

[@NotGoodAtNamingThings]

I would go so far as to say he SHOULD be replaced with a soundboard! :-)

[@ArjanKop]

I gave up 25 years ago, but I appreciate your effort to at least try to explain a thing or two.

[@CreationMyths]

Gonna keep trying. Can't help it.

[@ArjanKop]

@@CreationMyths like anyone would expect of a myth 😉

[@sciencenerd7639]

I might not have time to watch today but I'll just say your channel is awesome

[@CreationMyths]

It's long, I know, but I appreciate the love. If nothing else, watch the last, like, 7 minutes for the "but why Kent?" bit.

[@cicik57]

@@CreationMyths Thanks, that is great video of the argument you invented long time ago. A YEC of the level not like those persons in the video, could try to refute that with : 1) Assume, that initially created kinds had hierarchy between groups because the creator likes matching hierarchies of biochemistry to morphology. 2) The mutation process is not uniformly random, but in some way biased due to biochemistry or due the Lords will, what leads that mutations in non-coding regions ( or same in regions, what became non-functioning if you take the model, that created DNA was fully functional) tend to appear to be correlated between independent groups. Do you have arguments about that this mutation bias is not a real thing?

[@Detson404]

@@cicik57There is literally nothing that you can’t look at and say “well god just did it that way.” We could invent a Time Machine and watch every single generation change and you could still say “god just did it that way.” If that helps you sleep better at night, good for you, but that’s not very impressive and I think deep down you have to know that.

[@cicik57]

@@Detson404 no, it is not really about that, it is about if the mutations, not restricted by selection -means noncoding, are biased, as SFT ones said, or not. Of course from my amateurs' level of biology i guess this bias what would form hierarchy, is not a thing, and maybe only some nucleotide "mutation biases" are there but they should not lead to forming a hierarchy like this.

[@laserfan17]

Dan seems like the most patient person in the world and yet Kent is so irritating that he’s almost breaking his patience… lol

[@CreationMyths]

Legit did not realize how loudly I sighed a couple of times...

[@laserfan17]

@@CreationMyths Lol, You still did a great job, I probably would have reacted the same in your position. You can’t play chess with a pigeon, that’s for sure!

[@tylerwest719]

Almost as irritating as a used car salesman who thinks he knows more about genetics than a worldwide network of professional geneticists.

[@katinapac-baez5083]

You are too kind to them, but you also don't let yourself be cowed. I appreciate your kindness, tenacity and knowledge. Also, I kinda love that you are able to get under Kent's skin.

[@andrewcoming8855]

I find it interesting how SFT brought up a somewhat legitimate problem in phylogenetics about using constrained versus unconstrained sequences over different timescales due to mutation saturation, but then once you explained the actual reasons for why different sequences are used at different times, he kept repeating the argument as if you hadn't offered any solution. The mechanism involving linked (yet still unconstrained) sequences on the same chromosome that you covered also seemed to go over his head. That, or he was only half-listening to what you were saying. It was also kind of amusing when he started implying that you were unqualified to speak on these topics because you hadn't published papers specifically about them (as if such papers don't exist anywhere else in the academic literature). Overall, I don't think SFT was being an honest interlocutor here. He was really only hearing what he wanted to hear from you, still a good conversation though.

[@CreationMyths]

That is a good observation. Interesting that you could come away thinking that SFT wasn't being an honest interlocutor, which is a position that has merit, when he was being better than usual!

[@andrewcoming8855]

@@CreationMyths I guess that's fair. Maybe I'm just biased here (I feel like I have good reason to be, given some of my interactions with him in the past), but it seems like he could do better with actually arguing the points that are being made and responding to them with evidence. It feels like his intentions are not focused on gaining a better scientific understanding of these topics, and that's what I meant by him not being an "honest interlocutor." My conception of what that means might be different than yours. By the way, what did you think about the genetic entropy "discussion" with Paul Price the other day? It seemed like he really wasn't understanding the basic population genetics concepts, despite the diverse array of people that explained it to him.

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

@@CreationMyths Being better than usual for SFT is still not a good thing. I see Raw Matt was there and Matt is a blatant liar considering he is alive after 'living' as a Breatharian for two years. Anyone that did that died two weeks into the two years if they didn't drink water and within 2 months if they did drink but didn't eat barring the morbidly obese.

[@blingcicero6570]

Yeah but have you considered A?

[@CreationMyths]

@andrewcoming8855 I'll have a video on the Paul Price/GE show at some point. He's literally had this stuff explained to him for years. Me and Gutsick Gibbon were having this debate with him on Reddit like 5-6 years ago. He just refuses to accept any of it, even the most basic pop gen.

[@DeepSpace145]

Thank you Dr Dan ! basically you could remove the part about Kent Hovind and the discussion would lose nothing, I personally just skipped over anything Kent has to say, not because he's a creationist (because I played Matt and SFT's entries over and over just to understand their objections which is really educational provided that Dan has addressed those objections) . So I apprectiate the fact that Matt and SFT asked serious questions, especially that SFT at one point looks like he really tried to understand this thing about how Linkage disequilibrium affects the fixation rate in unconstrained sequences. In most discussions, the important thing is to try to understand first, even if parties don't agree, this is where Kent Hovind fails, it's not because he is a creationist, it's not because he is a beginner (all of us are beginners, and still learning), what Kent Hovind fails at is that he cannot take off that preaching robe.

[@blingcicero6570]

When it comes to genetics, creationists are strangers in a strange land

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

well they have opted out of reality when joining the YEC circus.

[@jell0goeswiggle]

31:00 I did a double-take at "for(e)skin color". (Apologies for the sophomoric contribution.) To add something more substantive: It seemed like there was a lot of talking past each other with respect to using different types of regions for different lengths of time. The point, as I understand it, of demonstrating unconstrained, nested hierarchies between "kinds" is to show that those populations _do_ in fact have a common ancestor. To the creationists' point about those unconstrained regions accumulating so many mutations as to be useless static over enough time, you didn't quite make it explicit that "yes, you're right for organisms that are very distantly related, which is why we use constrained regions in those cases, because they have a slower replacement rate (but that doesn't dispute the unconstrained hierarchies across so-called kinds on shorter timeframes)." Also, I think the "bug catcher" guy was under the impression that constrained means "cannot change at all". And yes, that was an extremely weird example.

[@laurajarrell6187]

Dr. Dan, I started this hours ago, lol, but I had a couple errands. It seemed to me, as an extremely undereducated layman, that your points were almost intuitive. And yet even the more educated theists didn't want to admit a couple points that were obvious. Kent doesn't count, he's less educated than I am. And I only went to 27 days in 9th grade, (tests, passed) before quitting at 15. Back in 1973/4?, lol. Though I got GED later and took a chemistry course at Community College. Then I took any course offered by my job as a Humane Officer. My only real bits of evolution are from KZbin. You, AronRa, Forrest Valkai, Gutsick (Erica) Gibbon and others. It has always seemed so obvious to me. Even abiogenesis. Ugh, kent trying to throw his weight, which he has lost through his deeds and stubborness, around and toss you off. LMAO 👍💙💝🥰✌

[@JohnathanReyes-r3n]

ive been watching/listening this as i work since friday and i just now noticed the end of the title -- 'and Kent Hovind Reading His Script' im over here LMAO🤣

[@Iankiambi]

“I’m not sure i comprehend what your saying”- kent hovind 7:52 mark

[@CreationMyths]

Truer words, amirite?

[@timtooful]

I have a parent who loves Hovind. Tragically, they have squandered thousands on his materials. Once when I gently suggested that "Dr Dino" might not be the most qualified educator on these topics, and that in fact some of the things he says may be "out of date", I was told directly by my parent that it didn't matter if Hovind was qualified or even if he was wrong about everything he said. The only thing that mattered, according to my parent, was that Hovind was "effective". He is effective at "communicating", and therefore effective at convincing "ordinary people" that God is the creator, and keeping them in the Church, and so keeping them from burning forever in Hell. So I asked directly: are you advocating not being truthful to win souls? If it keeps them from hell, they replied, it is worth it. I commented that that seemed like it might be a little short sighted, and could do damage in the long run. But in my parent's view, we don't know if we have a long run. It was a nice play, trying to make the case that Hovind's numbers are down. Hence he is not as "effective" as he supposedly once was. And I'm sure the case is made with the background awareness that there are many alternate motives working behind the scenes. Besides the inarguable fact that saving a human soul from eternal torment far outweighs any other consideration, another is simply that Hovind is a kind of parent figure to many of these people who grew up with him. It's hard to ditch or sideline your dad. Even when you realise he's been lying to you his whole life, and squandered so many resources that might have been put to such more "effective" long term use, in order to save your soul. And maybe that (but we dare not think it) was a lie too....

[@chaotickreg7024]

"Are you advocating not being truthful to win souls?" Unfortunately, many think it is permissible to kill to win souls. It's a common enough idea but I mean it literally got canonized in the Book of Mormon, "It is better for one man to die than for an entire nation to dwindle and perish in unbelief." And I fear this can be extrapolated to mean "It's ok to kill people that are spreading doubt." So yeah, telling a lie is easy when you think you're saving someone's soul.

[@fjoell]

I love Hovind's rattling on about "Putting the animals into categories with that constrained/unconstrained stuff, they don't care about that, that's just what humans call it, they know what kind they are". As if the "kind" he's referring to is not the same type of categorization put on by a human that life itself doesn't care about.

[@thylacoleonkennedy7]

Saying that molecular phylogenetics is 'just lines on paper' is so blatanly ignorantly idiotic it's ridiculous. Kent's narcissism is a fantastic shield against understanding and I really have to commend your patience dealing with him.

[@michaelsbeverly]

Oh, pooh pooh, your letters are just a *bunch of words* !

[@rogerkearns8094]

I understood it, so why couldn't Kent? And I'm not even a doctor! ;)

[@CreationMyths]

Kent's livelihood depends on him not understanding it.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

@@CreationMyths I doubt that. His livelihood these days is from his awful park, his trailerpark collection of awful people and occasional donations / fleezing like with Cindy of whom he took over 50k... They wouldn't abandon him if he were better at comprehending basic science and lying less about his alternate truths. What is in danger if he understands science is his self image, his superiority complex that he is the smart one while all the people going to actual university are stupid religious fanatics that do not get anything. he NEEDS to be speaking the truth to be a PROPHET and stand out amongst mere mortals. Narcissistic delusions.

[@aralornwolf3140]

@@CreationMyths, At this point, it's his ego which can't survive.

[@slack3001]

"I agree with your premises, but your conclusions are incompatible with my theology. That's just science."

[@barrry9]

Only about 30mins in but its sounding to me like Kent is desperately trying to stop you from talking, like he's scared of you or something. I'm not surprised, as you did a great job of showing that he just mindlessly follows a script on your last encounter

[@rumraket38]

That "Darth Thoranes" fella was one confused individual.

[@tylerwest719]

I like how Kent says Dr. Dan is just drawing lines on paper when it is actually a slide that Donny put up to show evidence for creationism.

[@irenafarm]

He’s getting so far behind that he’s losing the ability to parse the topic for keywords.

[@martinmckee5333]

I'm glad you can deal with this Dan, but boy I find this sort of "conversation" infuriating.

[@dib737]

Great video, Dan!

[@CreationMyths]

Thank you!

[@Crispr_CAS9]

Kent: "Oh man, this guy knows what he's talking about! Kick him out! Mute him! Make him stop!"

[@robertadsett5273]

I wasn’t expecting the passive diss of it’ll be past your bedtime kent from SFT

[@CreationMyths]

I think that was directed at me since I often go to bed at a semi-reasonable hour while they're still streaming at like 3am. Joke's on them I stuck around for like two hours.

[@susansays]

I'm a big fan and am firmly in "team science." I've spent the last year watching videos on this channel and Gutsick Gibbon and Dapper Dinosaur and Forrest Valkai to combine entertainment with learning about the science of evolution stuff which I never learned in school. (A LOT has happened in field in the intervening years, and I never went beyond basics in this topic anyway. It's so fun to learn this stuff with videos on reacting or debating or debunking creationists.) I said all that so that you would understand where this question is coming from. It's not from a creationist point of view where I have a reason not to understand. It's just from an ignorance point of view of someone who really wants to understand and who has very little background in biology. I watched part of this debate from the video that Based Theory posted on his site. Then I saw this video on this site and watched this cut. Between those two viewings and trying to look up definitions on the internet, I think I have pretty good understanding of what an unconstrained region is and a (fairly) vague understanding of nested hierarchy in the context of this discussion. But for the life of me, I can't understand Dan's argument about why unconstrained regions are the best evidence for evolution I think there was even a point in the discussion where Dan said it was OK to assume that all the created "kinds" start out with the same unconstrained regions, but something about what happens in future generations means that evolution has to be true. I'm posting this question partly to see if I can get an answer, but also to start to address Dan's introductory point about the value of these conversations. I think the potential for conversations like this is not to sway anyone you are having a conversation with, but to sway the people watching. If someone like me doesn't understand the basic point, then maybe there is less value to the conversation. Is it possible that Dan was so annoyed with Kent that he didn't explain the basic, initial point as well as he could have? Yes, Kent absolutely *should* understand this stuff and he probably can't. But if the goal is to get through to others who are capable of understanding, then it might make sense to step back and explain the basics of the main point. (Though I'm fully willing to admit that the problem may be just me! If so, ignore my post. :-) )

[@CreationMyths]

First, thank you. I really appreciate the thought that went into this. I'm going to try to explain it in writing. My fuller explanation is also on video here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jInLmpmNeax3las Basically, we know that mutations are not deterministic - which specific mutations happen, and the order in which they happen is not predetermined. So once two lineages separate from each other, they will experience different mutations from each other. Second, there are regions in most genomes that are unconstrained. That just means that there is no cost to having one sequence compared to any other sequence - the actual sequence of nucleotide bases - the As, Ts, Cs, and Gs - doesn't matter. So the mutations in those regions tend to accumulate at a faster rate than in places like genes, where the sequence matters a lot, and if you break it, the individual might die, or otherwise have lower fitness - less reproductive success. In other words, there are parts of the genome where mutations aren't selected against, more or less. Third, evolution predicts that in those regions I just described, we should be able to make nested hierarchical patterns based on evolutionary relatedness - who shares a more recent common ancestor with whom. So like humans and chimps are more closely related than either is to gorillas, since the human-chimp common ancestor is more recent than the human-gorilla common ancestor. Lineages that have been separate for less time will share more mutations in unconstrained regions because they share more of their respective evolutionary histories. So like primates and rodents have more in common than primates and canids. But all mammals have more in common with each other than any of them do with snakes and lizards. That pattern of similarity is called a nested hierarchy. Evolution predicts this pattern no matter how far back you go, but YEC does not. Because in YEC, different "kinds" were created separately, so they don't share an evolutionary history. So within a created kind - the "dog" kind, for example, you should see a similar pattern - dogs and wolves vs. dogs and coyotes, for example. But *across* kinds, we *shouldn't* see the same pattern. The reason is that, for example, dogs and cats, according to YECs, don't have a common ancestor. So even if they start *identical*, it won't matter, because the mutations that occur in those two groups will be uncorrelated, since mutations are *not* deterministic. So if you look at these mutations that accumulate by chance over time, you shouldn't get a neat dog group and a neat cat group closely related to each other and separate from the "mouse" group - the pattern of similarity between those separately created groups should be random, since the mutations that determine the pattern of similarity are probabilistic and are NOT the result of actual shared evolutionary histories. This MUST be the case if separate ancestry is true. But we actually see the first thing. We find the nested hierarchies that we expect based on evolutionary theory. Which pretty much disproves separate ancestry.

[@susansays]

​@@CreationMyths Thank you so much for taking the time to write this!! I *think* I'm getting it. I feel pretty dense about it. I know I fully understand right up until you talk about the YEC side of things. Then I get a little lost, but I'm starting to get it. I'm going to read your reply a few more times and then I'm going to watch the video you linked to. Thank you !!! *:-)*

[@susansays]

​@@CreationMyths Oh wait! I read it again and I'm really getting it now!!! Woo hoo! :-) Thank you again!!! Also: You break my heart that primates are more related to rodents than my dog? I'm just joking, but actually, that gave me a lot to think about, because I see a lot of similarities between humans and dogs. I'm not saying dogs are non-verbal, 4 legged people in fur suits, but humans and dogs share a range of emotions and our two species seem to understand each other so well. Now I wonder how much I would feel kinship with a rat if developed a relationship with one. You don't have to reply. I'm just sharing my thoughts and i really do appreciate that you took the time to explain how the unconstrained data is proof for evolution. Very cool stuff!

[@GerardStainsby-s4s]

Also: teaching genetics is hard enough with a receptive, educated audience. You have my respect for attempting to do so with a hostile audience who feel free to second-guess you despite lacking even the fundamental concepts/vocabulary to understand what you're saying

[@galacsinhajto]

"Dr." Kent Hovind. He is a doctor in the same way as the cartoon surgeon on the classic Operation children's game is a "doctor".

[@Renpet516]

Love how Hovind has a hissy fit when people aren’t paying attention to him

[@CreationMyths]

Must be the center of attention.

[@Chris-vi6tg]

the study that proves we are the dreams of martians is much more convincing than the “evolution beats creation” debate.

[@morganstiefvater2019]

Kent is so frustrating, but I feel like Bubble is somehow equally so, just in such a baffling way. I can't tell if I'm too high or not high enough to understand what that guy is saying. Still, "we keep Kent around to make fun of him" isn't entirely wrong. Absolutely not worth keeping him around for, though

[@CreationMyths]

Bubble in genuinely out there. Like "every species was separately created and speciation never happens" out there. Still not entirely certainly it isn't a bit.

[@robertadsett5273]

@@CreationMythscertainly that “discussion” on fetishes and fitness seemed like a bit

[@histreeonics7770]

Is it correct to view that "incomplete lineage sorting" is due entirely to the allele variation across the population prior to the splitting into subclades? If so it has taken me many of your videos to realize this, perhaps due to how fast you talk on some of the things that are as familiar to you as your own name :)

[@SnakeWasRight]

While better than anything Hovind can bring, I feel like they still just gave you the runaround.

[@tzvikrasner6073]

I love how they kept trying to interrupt you to give Kent a chance to distract the faithful so the lesson couldn't sink in.

[@nagranoth_]

You want micro evolution changing something in a macro way? How about evolving from single cell to multi cell as a direct result of predation? We have observed that in real time. It doesn't get more macro than that transition...

[@scientious]

20:00 No one seems to be listening to Dan's argument. 25:00 No one is listening. 28:42 Kent demonstrates that he still does not understand the topic. 40:40 After failing to understand the conversation, Kent rage quits. 47:00 Even this far in, they don't seem to understand the argument. 53:00 Grayson trying again to explain Dan's argument. 54:46 And Donny immediately missing the point and trying to move the conversation to something else. 57:00 Donny still doesn't understand. 1:02:00 They still don't understand. 1:09:00 Repetition of the same misunderstandings. I don't see anyone in the group moving forward. 1:12:00 I feel like I'm listening to 8 year olds trying to understand calculus when the argument is not nearly that complicated. 1:19:00 This is going nowhere. They still can't understand basic concepts.

[@danpettinger1353]

They don't fail to understand, they refuse to understand. That would stop the grift.

[@RussianPrimeMinister]

​@@danpettinger1353 What does Aaron Ra say? "You cannot convince a man of the truth when his salary depends on selling the lie" or something similar. Kent, and his cronies, to a T.

[@chaotickreg7024]

​@@RussianPrimeMinisterAron Ra live is explosive, but Aron Ra scripted is a weapon of precision.

[@chaotickreg7024]

To be fair, I'm impressed that you could keep up any more than the people actually in the conversation. But at some point, a person needs to figure out how to concede and admit that they have something to learn.

[@scientious]

@@chaotickreg7024 You are impressed that someone could keep up with a simple argument? Seriously?

[@martinmckee5333]

When I was teaching, if i had a student who was doodling and not paying attention, I didn't "take their pen away". I recognized that either something was getting in the way of them being able to concentrate or I needed to do a better job - as the teacher - of inspiring interest. My very last conclusion would be that someone simply does not care anout the truth and wishes to be maliciously dishonest.

[@jesusgavemeaids]

It would be easy to assume Kent is the last one; just doesn't care about the truth (or doesn't show an interest in learning) but I don't know... It could be a combo of all those things.

[@martinmckee5333]

@@jesusgavemeaids Exactly. It could be one of those listed, a combination, or something else entirely. But for someone in a position to educate others to simply assume the worst and try to shut them down.... It just sucks, that's all.

[@jamesdownard1510]

Hovind's history as a science teacher is very murky (he always avoids being specific about exactly where this pedagogy took place, but it appears to have been in a minor Christian school).

[@martinmckee5333]

@@jamesdownard1510 True, I am well aware of that. Regardless of where his "illustrious career" took place, however, his response shows he was a poor teacher. Not exactly a surprise though.

[@johnferguson8794]

Dan you're an absolute champ at pointing out the smoke screen Danny keeps tossing up! And the convo was better when Kent was quite. Edit the convo was better without bubbles too.....hes spent too much time near darth.

[@Fade2GrayOG]

My main takeaway from the Hovind section is that he's woefully out of his depth, even by the paltry standards of modern YEC. All he had left is the lingering respect of the moderator, who's willing to silence his opposition so he can save face.

[@CreationMyths]

Yup! No answers, just yelling to boot me.

[@jacksonroe3080]

I tend to just let you talk in these when I'm also there lol. On another note Kent can't be reasoned with, I must have tried a dozen times. I brought up conodonts in relation to biostratigraphy. He said "I bet conodonts are the same kind."

[@nebulan]

I like the guys who actually tried to stay on topic

[@nebulan]

Omg why did kent start talking again, no one cares about you

[@paulgarrett4474]

Kent is there to make Matt look clever.

[@gordmain5370]

You have so much more patience that I do. From what I have noticed with SFT and Matt, they will make the same arguments and need to have the same things explained to them next time. Kent always goes with his cows produce cows thing - it gets old for me and I don't ever talk to him. Hopefully their audience learns from these sessions.

[@CreationMyths]

It's always the same nonsense but I've come around to the position that, unfortunately, if you want to reach an audience that doesn't already agree with you, you have to go to where that audience is.

[@gordmain5370]

@@CreationMythsI can appreciate that and that is why I enjoy watching interactions with YECs. I, as an observer, get frustrated that you have taught me your points and made me interested in learning more but they YECs never appear to absorb anything. Although, I understand that is how their channels actually make money so it makes sense they would continue to grift their watchers as much as they can. I just recently found your channel via Erika and Dapper. I don't like how some YECs interact with people (I have seen screenshots from comment sections) but I understand that sometimes 'forgetting' those interactions makes it possible to reach people who have been caught in the grift.

[@popamolly247]

Pro tip: if you check the description (at least on PC/in browser), it provides an interesting 'featured places' section. I for one am now 100% more educated on the fact that there exists a Rawmatt CNG station in India. On topic, though: I am of the opinion that Kent provides no value in this space anymore, even to laugh at. Additionally, whilst I can appreciate the argument of engaging with YEC's for the sake of educating the audience, something about doing so specifically with Donny and Matt feels off. I don't think they're stupid. They must at least suspect that they might be on the wrong side here. So why continue the charade? There's only one conclusion I can come to. Well, that or they really do love Jesus that much. Either way, in my view, that kind of behaviour probably shouldn't be encouraged. So I guess it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis of whether the harm of enabling that kind of behaviour is worth the benefit of potentially helping other people escape scientific illiteracy, and that's beyond my ability to do. For my 2 cents, I enjoy your content regardless. Keep it up!

[@CreationMyths]

Yeah, I'm genuinely undecided on the question...I go back and forth. Right now I'm coming down on the side that it's better to be in the room to counterbalance the misinformation, but I could easily change my mind by next week.

[@woodyhoots375]

Is that meant to be Emma Thorne on Darth Thoranes thumbnail? I can't tell. Looks a lot like her but kind of weird if it is.

[@ninecowsh9228]

1:19:00 ish… I just love it when creationists do quote-mining, but forgets to remove bits that will contradict their claims. The quote presented literally starts with “on average”. So we should expect deviations from it in real life

[@robertadsett5273]

It seems that the substitution discussion needed a mathematics discussion but I don’t expect the sft crew could follow it and instead had to chase analogies to the math as the math

[@CreationMyths]

Yeah I've tried to actually do math for them before and it's a complete waste of time. Grayson also tried over the course of this conversation and it was also a waste of time. Just not hearing it.

[@amaizenblue44]

​@@CreationMythsyep same with apologetics101. I tried to show him the extremely simple math error in Tomkins 2018 raw data, and he just couldn't grasp why "averaging the averages" to find the composite similarity gets you the wrong answer. He blatantly stated he had no interest in doing math of any kind.

[@sahb8091]

I see Donny as a victim. He looks up to Kent so much, but one day he's going to disagree with him about something, and he's going to see how quickly a narcissist can turn. But right now he's just an enabler.

[@danpettinger1353]

Donny isn't a victim, he's a dishonest grifter who platforms other dishonest grifters.

[@budd2nd]

The problem is that they are excepting similar (inherited) traits, but ignoring the similar (also inherited) faults, that are also within their gods supposedly “perfect” design.

[@makkukoo]

I've learned so much from you! Hovind being his usual self clearly let the entire topic fly over his head by dismissing all as 'lines on a paper' but I'm a bit surprised with sft and raw apparently being so able to at least follow along, as if they weren't the authors of the badly formatted pamphlet sold on Amazon Erika reviewed in 9 or so videos. Though my understanding is that donny is often civil enough face to face while doing all the badmouthing of ppl later on. How obvious is universal common ancestry, really?

[@dayniasykora7213]

No man has ever sounded as sad as Dan when he said, “We can get on the white board and do math, but nobody wants to do that.” And ‘bug catchers’? WT literal F?!?

[@ninecowsh9228]

1:26:10 “mom unzips and dad unzips”… unless they wear buttoned pants that’s actually how recombination starts 😂

[@gupdoo3]

If it weren't for the fact that he was always like this i would legitimately think he was going senile

[@JohnathanReyes-r3n]

if that happens to humans and people in a specific region dietary reasons should be taken into account. im sure they eat the same animal flesh and eating animal protein has recently been linked to different types of cancers and even heart disease. The China Study is a good one to get started with in case you are interested.

[@zhuting2795]

I genuinely think someone needs to take the time and explain what a cladogram actually means piece by piece to Kent (assuming they haven't already). I'm a Christian, but I feel like someone should point out to Kent that the Bible also is just lines on paper. But I'm sure he'd agree that the importance of the Bible isn't the lines, but what they mean and the history and myth behind them. Turns out, it's the same with cladograms, only they have research, statistics, and evidence behind them.

[@AnIntriguedFeline]

At around the 1h mark, Matt said "Chimpanzees, our closest relatives". That is a freudian slip. How can they be our closest relatives, if you insist that we are not apes? How can they be our closest relatives if we are unrelated and seperate kinds? Or have they now accepted that humans are apes?

[@MrSpleenface]

You could accept that Chimps are our closest relatives while denying that we are apes. The key question that they will avoid answering at all costs is whether WE are CHIMPS' closest living relatives.

[@AnIntriguedFeline]

@@MrSpleenface No, you cannot. If you acknowledge them as our relatives, however close or far away it is, then they are related through commen ancestry. Moreover, humans have all the characteristics necessary to make them apes. Specifically downward, dry nosed apes (Catarhines).

[@MrSpleenface]

@@AnIntriguedFeline When I said "closest relatives" I simply meant "most genetically similar." Yes obviously truly acknowledging that we are related precludes us being created separately, almost by definition. What would be a problem for the YECs to acknowledge, since they claim that God created "ape-kind" and "human-kind" is that chimpanzees are closer genetically to humans than they are to gorillas or orangutans

[@jamesdownard1510]

Now Dan, if all you're gonna do is present your aimless doodles to a great scholar like Dr. Hovind, well the next thing you'll be asking is for Kent to write up a monograph to persuade, say, Nathaniel Jeanson, of something. Cue snowball roasting in hell.

[@CreationMyths]

Any day now...

[@jamesdownard1510]

@@CreationMyths Hovind has managed to be a stopped clock that isn't even right twice a day, by the simple expedient that both the factual hands fell off it some time ago.

[@robertadsett5273]

@@jamesdownard1510yay someone that words the metaphor correctly 😂

[@Jdelli0916]

How would a creationist falsify their model?

[@nadirku]

Could we actually get a video of some of that math? like if we have a portion of a genome of a given size range, with a given mutation/substitution rate range, how quickly should we expect any hierarchy built off of that region to be reduced to noise? Is that math just simple algebra? like if we have a region that is 1 million base pairs long, and a substitution rate of 10 base pairs per generation, we would expect to have trouble building reliable hierarchies that are more than 100 thousand generations old? So if you have an animal with an average of 10 years per generation, we would expect that hypothetical 1 million base pair region to not be able to build hierarchies on an over 10 million year time scale, though a 50 million base pair long region with the same substitution rate could be used at that time scale? Unless I misunderstood what was discussed here, that is what is expected to happen, right? based on the size of a genome, and the substitution rates of various parts of it, it will be difficult to identify hierarchies that are more than a certain number of generations old/deep?

[@velvetmagnetta3074]

I think that's the concept Dan referred to as "saturation"? I, too, would like a deeper dive into that subject, though it sounded more related to population genetics and might be too complicated to make just a short video on it. But if Dan can take an idealized example like the one you laid out - the proverbial spherical cow in a vacuum - maybe he can break it down enough to give laymen at least a general idea of how it all works. Just a little math should be ok!

[@nadirku]

​@@velvetmagnetta3074 I think you are right. "Substitution rates", the rate that mutations in individuals spread to achieve fixation in a population, should be dependent on population size, so the way I used it in my initial example was probably grossly over simplified.

[@borisbauwens7133]

Taking a longer sequence wouldn't help increase the time you can "look back" to, because mutation rates are per base per generation, so the total length goes away in the maths. I would think that a rough estimate is when two DNA sequences become so different that they are about 25% identical. Because that's the similarity you expect for any two sufficiently random, independent sequences. (Because at every nucleotide, there is a 1 in 4 chance of a random match). So two identical, functionally neutral sequences of 1000 bases, mutating independently at a rate of 1 base per generation per 1000 bases, diverging for 375 generations, accumulate 750 (=2x375) differences in total. And now they might as well be similar by chance. That would give a good order of magnitude estimate I think. (Of course ignoring reverse mutations and independent similar mutations, which become more likely as time goes on. And assuming no selection.)

[@velvetmagnetta3074]

@@borisbauwens7133 - But doesn't that only give you 6,000 to 10,000 years back until saturation? That doesn't seem long enough. Am I misunderstanding your calculation?

[@borisbauwens7133]

@@velvetmagnetta3074 my toy example had a massively high mutation rate because I don't want to do too much math in my head :) plug in realistic numbers and it should be better. Like 10^-9 per site per generation, then it takes 375 million generations to build up 375 mutations in a 1000 bp sequence, which is a lot of years.

[@tctheunbeliever]

"Thanks, Uncle Kent! I tell you, your jokes just never get old. Bye, we'll see you next year! OK guys, once Bob gets back from taking the old fart home we can talk about grownup stuff. No, I don't think he had any new stories this time. Give him a break, prison is no fairy-tale world."

[@chidy9699]

Why is the bottom guy so close to the camera? It is really distracting.

[@CreationMyths]

That's his deal. Full screen = face.

[@TheDanBidondiShow]

GOD KNOWS BETTER! There is no myths about creation

[@freddan6fly]

Compared to Kent, even Dishonest Donny sounds smart.

[@tylerwest719]

Despite Kent being annoying as usual, I learned how geneticists determine that LUCA is a valid theory and the evidence for it, so it was worth it for me.

[@chrispysaid]

2:46 I get told this a lot

[@robertadsett5273]

The obliviousness of kent has not been more obviously on display

[@CreationMyths]

mission accomplished.

[@lawrencemurray568]

Nice work. My first impression is this is all way beyond Kent Hovind's ability to comprehend. However, it could be that he refuses to accept the facts simply because he knows that he will be unable to refute the key point.

[@RCGamex]

Fair 😂 ok Donny….

[@bitcores]

After 20 minutes Kent realized no one remembered he was there so he just had to butt into the current conversation. Though, to be fair, Kent's response didn't address anything you said, so he basically wasn't taking part anyway.

[@topdawgshadic]

What are animal hybrids to Kent?

[@WilliamCacilhas]

Fitness is different from survival? Dr. Dan if you read this correct me if I’m wrong. But isn’t fitness a measure of survival? That is, an organism that is more fit will have a higher chance for survival and reproduction?

[@CreationMyths]

Fitness is reproduction relative to other members of your population. Or your genetic contribution to the next generation relative to other members of your population. Not strictly survival.

[@WilliamCacilhas]

@@CreationMyths ah that makes sense. Thank you for the correction!

[@irenafarm]

1:12:25 but particularly starting 1:14:01 My man really wants biologists to support his phobias.

[@histreeonics7770]

Pigs and humans live in the same environment, with some shared food sources (pigs are fed human meal food scraps). That allows for convergent evolution at the protein level for anything with a strong correlation to that environment such as digestive enzymes. Is such a conjecture something that we have the data to investigate? IE do we know the biochemical functions of "the pigs are closer to humans than chimps" regions? -- If we share gut bacteria are our intestinal lords and masters adjusting us using common design? (Making a joke about Dawkin's essay stating that we appear to be designed for the convenience and comfort of our gut bacteria)

[@michaelsbeverly]

30:00 Sure, we can concede that if an all-powerful god existed that could do anything, then anything is possibile. Pretty much a tautology, no?

[@Erufailon42]

Kent seems to claim that animals only try to mate within their kind. I wonder what he would think about bee mimicking orchids, or the numerous documented examples of wild horny male animals attempting to mate with other species (the infamous seal-penguin video comes to mind)

[@John.0z]

Green Sea Turtles are another example. You remind me of the time up on the Great Barrier Reef I was told of a time when the SCUBA divers entered the water off the dive boat - and they all came straight back up. They all struggled to get out of the water before the male sea turtles selected them as the nearest object for mating. ☹😳 It was late in the mating season when I was there, but I was still specifically told to watch out for the males. In some species the mating instinct is so strong that it can find itself directed to strange things.

[@irenafarm]

It’s something livestock farmers know and have to manage. Most species that are aggressive enough to use as livestock guardians, will also engage in potentially dangerous mating behaviors with the flock/herd. Dogs are way more snobbish, so we can use intact male dogs to guard, but it’s more difficult to manage equines, camelids, etc. Dogs have their own issues ofc. 😂

[@nagranoth_]

So as usual they refuse to deal with the point, just a few distractions and Kent whining he doesn't get enough attention....

[@histreeonics7770]

Halfway through I haven't heard the point being made that while God might have continued to mess with DNA to cause the nested hierarchies in unconstrained sequences, the "God model" does not *predict* that while the scientific one does. That makes the scientific model *more valid* than the God one, where validity is not to be confused with 'true'.

[@WesBalewski]

I absolutely love how you try as hard as you can to reduce the information down to the level of kindergarten, just to try make everything easy for Kent Hovand to hopefully grasp the most basic concept, hearing him talk & say the same shit over & over, dudes a hack thank you for dunking on creationists

[@rolandwatts3218]

//"Can't help myself ..."// I know what you mean. I had been arguing/discussing/debating creationists on their forums for about 20 years. It grew too frustrating in the end. For the last 7 or so years I've been mostly discussing religion and theology with believers. It's nearly as frustrating but takes less research. But if I see a post, it's like an itch. I just have to scratch it. Kent Hovind? I think he's a grifter. (Did he actually see the dog pair come off the ark and give rise to all the modern dog types we have today?)

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

And hwo does he explain wolves and dogs being so similar? Was only a wolf on the ark and more than just dogs evolved from it? How about felines? Egyptian art, which these numpties put about 200 years after the flood, already shows lions and house cats, possibly more wild variations. So did that evolve in ONLY 200 years? I'm not sure how fast lions mature sexually, but i think it's 2-3 years. so 100 generations for all the differences from "flood feline" to either lion or "egyptian domesticated cat" (I think they look a bit like a mix of siamese and "sphinx cats"...)

[@davidandres8404]

Kent doesn't understand anything that is being discussed.

[@walkergarya]

Hovind cannot understand Evolutoin because he works VERY hard not to understand Evolution.

[@tfive24]

I have only been listening for 10 minutes and I am already frustrated.

[@stefanfrello2953]

You do not need to refer to regions that can freely mutate. And I think you should have anticipated Kent Hovind not accepting any premise for anything, which just has a the slightest smell of amounting to an argument. If you had used the Mitochondrial Genome, mtDNA, you could have started by stating that all animals have exactly the same genes in more or less the same order, and on to other creatures all the way to Bacteria that actually have exactly the same genes performing the same function. Strong evidence that these genes has no influence on morphology or physiology, but just basic biochemistry.

[@jeffdavis593]

There goes crazy Kent again.

[@DeanKruger]

Kent fiddling with his slides while everybody is talking genetics and biology. ROFL

[@CreationMyths]

He really was sitting there thinking "damn, I have no idea what any of this means, do I have anything with these words on it?" Just clueless and he knew it.

[@irenafarm]

We’re watching science thoroughly pass Kent by in real time.