HEATED Evolution Debate!

Check out my podcast rss.com/podcas... or open.spotify.c...
Support me on Patreon / planetpeterson
Support me on Venmo: account.venmo....
Be sure to follow me on social media!
Instagram: / planetpeterson
TikTok: @planet_peterson

[@joshboydtheactor]

“Prove to me evolution happens, but you can’t use the evidence for evolution” -that dude.

[@deveryday1]

Him: GIVE ME EVIDENCE Peterson: *gives evidence* Him: NO, I WILL ONLY ACCEPT MY NARROW EXCLUSIONARY DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE

[@johnryan6658]

Meanwhile, all they do is attack evidence, yet never provide any of their own.

[@phicomingatya]

What evidence?

[@purelyrandom1230]

There was no evidence lol

[@madara211000]

@@purelyrandom1230 Must've been listening to the conversation with your feet then

[@JBarbourx279]

@@phicomingatya I know I'm 9 months late but I heard evidence. Duplicated genes mutating into different information. A perfect example he should of used during the 1 dollar part of the convo would have been when the christian dude said a dollar wont give you ten dollars or 20 dollars. Yes if a dollar is duplicated 9 times it gives you 10 dollars. If your gene duplicates and then mutates to take on another function then all of the functions you had are still there + one. That is added information. BTW most of our DNA is junk DNA. So there's a crap ton of DNA that currently does nothing that can mutate into functioning genes.

[@michaelandrew677]

38 minutes of talking to a guy who's absolutely incapable of understanding the first thing about the topic he's discussing. He couldn't have been more clueless if he'd encased his head in cement to keep the knowledge out. And you handled it with a smile. Your patience level is extraordinary.

[@ianchisholm5756]

'You and your buddies *take by faith* that all these magic events occurred in the past!' shouts the angry theist.

[@Detson404]

They want to reduce everything to faith, because then it’s just their story vs the other guys story and they don’t need to deal with all the evidence that contradicts them.

[@Lupinemancer87]

If I take Yellow and Blue and mix them together, I get a new color Green from pre-existing colors. There it's done. This argument was a waste of time. Evolution is a proven fact. End of discussion.

[@Sparkydr07]

This guy needs to learn how biological evolution works

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

Gene duplication plus natural selection on one of the duplicated genes, the only mechanism you need for new information, but not the only one.

[@Virtualblueart]

​@@uncleanunicorn4571virus dna getting incorporated is another.

[@lubrew5862]

@@uncleanunicorn4571Endogenous retroviruses also introduce genetic material. And they are also one of the ways we know see are related to the other great apes.

[@darthnightstrike1808]

​@@Virtualblueartvirus are truly interesting and terrifying creatures. Some viruses imcrease the likelihood of developing cancer

[@FleyDragon]

If evolution is false because a mutation is just a rearranging of preexisting stuff, then building a vending machine is impossible because we can only rearrange preexisting matter.

[@unnamedchannels]

How can someone be so wrong and be so confident at the same time 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@fishistwonk]

Our current thinking is that dogs ‘evolved’ from wolves over 20,000 years ago and they share 99.9% DNA. But man wants to see 50 times more than that in his lifetime.

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

Wolves and the different breeds of dogs were separately created.

[@fishistwonk]

@@vesuvandoppelganger Explain

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

Do you really think that if you start with a group of wolves and start breeding them you will eventually end up with a Chihuahua or a Dalmatian?

[@fishistwonk]

@@vesuvandoppelganger Damn, didn’t explain a thing…

[@TwilightCovenant]

⁠@@vesuvandoppelgangerdo you think that just because you have an emotional attachment to a fairytale that you have any answers to anything? Your best explanation for anything is “but muh god”. How do you crate or solve anything with that? You don’t and you owe literally everything in your modern life to science.

[@deveryday1]

Dude doesn't realize he's confusing biogenesis with evolution

[@umaiar]

This guest needs to call into a show with Forrest for this conversation. The unfortunate situation we're in seems to require any "real atheist" to be an educated philosopher, a theologian, a biologist, an astrophysicist, and a particle physicist.

[@ahsanzee]

In a recent call on I think axp. Paulogia was the gues host and he had this really interesting and sincere advice for theist (specifically creationists) which was to look up the language of the camp they are arguing against. Not to change thier beliefs or agree to something they don't want to but just to be able to speak honestly. Because just the process of getting to know the terminology can be enough to get you off the script that people forget is an actual script. Callers often have a script for each of the fields you listed and they can swap scripts on the fly.

[@richardstevenwalz4968]

I'm one of those!! I'm a physicist AND an Evolutionary geneticist!! Copying mistakes in meiosis produce mutations, which in offspring are selected by natural selection to survive. No, vit C was availble to primates living in fruit trees. The GULO gene was not needed, so mutations that damaged it were irrelevant. Three levels of control, genes for proteins, switch with if then properties, and HOX which control the timed order of embryo assembly in body segments. Humans are segmented like worms by our vertebrae!! This clown is a complete moron! There is NO shuffling that changes function!! New *IS* change!!! DNA is like a medieval palimpsest, like papyrus scraped bare and rewritten on!! This shithead is blocking his explanation everytime Peterson tells him the truth!! He is scared to LET him tell him the truth!! He is terrified to be shown what would trash his moronic religion!!! WRONG!!! DNA WRITES ITSELF!!

[@guitarizard]

I don't understand why atheists have to be polymaths either. Is like we do all this homework for someone else who isn't going to listen to any of it😢

[@MrDeadhead1952]

It would help if the actually knew something about the subject he is trying to debate. Anyone who wants to argue about genetics but doesn't know what a 'hox' gene is in no position to be making absolute statements about the subject.

[@Its419games]

How can he not figure out that a change of existing genetic information _is_ new genetic information. It's really not that difficult.

[@spamm0145]

Where did the original information come from? If I change 2+2=4 to 2+2=5 it is new information but in the context of a code it prevents the original intent of that code from functioning as intended and eventually will cause problems not an increase in complexity. Isn't this what we see in DNA, mutations causing cancers, diseases, allergies, etc? Changes in specific code may cause an incidental perceived benefit but always at the cost of the original intent becoming compromised. A good analogy would be a computer game whose code gets altered and enables the controllable player to walk through walls and at first it seems beneficial until the player tries to activate a part of the game that requires interaction with a door and cannot progress as the code is unable to detect the mechanism of the door. Isn't this what we see with things like sickle cell? It seems like a beneficial mutation because of a malaria advantage but the person suffers a constant shortage of red blood cells, this can cause pain and other serious complications (health problems) such as infection, acute chest syndrome and stroke. So mutations are most definitely a bad thing, even if it seems a mutation has an incidental unintended benefit, it is detrimental overall because the code has been corrupted. The code in all living things was written by an intelligent agent way beyond the capabilities of mankind, this is observable in information, the higher the complexity of information, the higher the level of required intelligence, the code in DNA clearly necessitates a super level of intellect and knowledge and that would be GOD.

[@deadpooldestroyer4480]

False@@spamm0145

[@ryans9029]

​@@spamm0145no.... 🤣😂😂 you are making a mistake by getting stuck using math or code as an analogy. These are used to help understand. They aren't accurate.

[@dansmith7009]

⁠@@spamm0145​​⁠​⁠​⁠wow, ok. Two things. 1) there is NO SUCH THING as a trait that is beneficial in ALL environments. The sickle cell gene is beneficial in an environment where malaria is prevalent AND there is no medicine. It is not beneficial in environments where that isn’t true. A gene that makes you grow bigger and stronger is beneficial in some environments, but it is detrimental when food is scarce, because a bigger stronger body needs more calories. 2) even with your computer code example, we have SO MANY examples of bugs that create new gameplay options and are exploited. The only problem you have is you *assume* an original intent. For example, if we assume that first, there was a neutral mutation so the code had two copies of the door interaction, and THEN one of them broke in the way you describe, I think we agree that each button press to interact with a door only having a 50% chance of working would definitely be a smaller detriment than the increased information of being able to see through walls, right? Clicking 2-3 times to open a door would be pretty easy to ignore in most games.

[@sebastiansorondo4440]

@@spamm0145 it COULD be a god. You are saying that is is too complex so it has to be god but there is no evidence to support that. That is your assumption and until proven is just that. What is even more far fetched is trying to justify it as the CHRISTIAN god. Where no relation between that assumption and god exists. You made a rationale with no evidence.

[@mrcolbyii181]

he sounds like a Hovind disciple to me.

[@kingboye2752]

He is

[@hindsight2022]

And you sound like a disciple of ra

[@mrcolbyii181]

@@hindsight2022 i haven't made any claims. so how do you know what I believe or don't believe

[@hindsight2022]

@@mrcolbyii181 deduction . Your comment degraded Dr Kent Hovind showing your distain for his stance and your stance as an evolutionist/atheist . As such you more than likely follow aron ra as he seems to be the preeminent atheist on KZbin and has had back and forth with Dr . Hovind in the past . But then again I'm just a dude on the interwebs . Am I wrong tho ?

[@mrcolbyii181]

@@hindsight2022 all the ribbing he does to use, it's only far he gets some back

[@azndemonlord54]

The caller's use of the word 'new' in this context doesn't match with reality. Also, I'm sure caller isn't using 'new genetic information' in manner that doesn't match reality.

[@Shinigamibraggo]

Yeah their whole argument seems semantic.

[@sammcbride113]

EVERY MUTATION IS NEW INFORMATION

[@notavailable4891]

No. What if I mutate a gene's nucleotides to be all AAAAAAAAAAA, it will produce nothing because it contains no information.

[@VC-id1ho]

Anyone else annoyed that the guest kept repeating the question like freaking parrot.

[@richardb7495]

Sorry but this guy is quite despicable. I can hear the disdain he has for Petersons attempts to answer his questions or arguments. Plus he doesn’t have even an elementary understanding of what science is and isn’t, or how mutations and selections work

[@SeanArchibeque]

You gave multiple examples of how mutations can produce new genetic information and he just aggressively denied all of them with absolutely no argument… just “false” it was weak

[@spamm0145]

Where did the original information come from? If you trace the creations of an A.I. to its origin what do you find? Would it be a mind that created the A.I. Information has to originate from a mind, this has been observable for thousands of years. Also mutations are a corruption of the original code without intent or purpose, if I alter 2+2=4 to 2+2=5, it is new information but does it allow the code to function as intended and how on earth would this solve problems like 'flight' that requires high levels of knowledge and understanding in physics, math, engineering, and aerodynamics. the information has to be in place and complete in order for this to be possible. If evolution were true there would be transformational fossils by the trillions stacking up as failures, we have billions of fossils that are fully completed creatures and transitional fossils of species, that's because their DNA was coded by a creator with the abilities to replicate their kind and a degree of adaptation in a changing environment.

[@Virtualblueart]

​@@spamm0145False! Hey, I can debate as well as the anti evolutionist in the video!

[@tomroyca]

@@spamm0145 "Where did the original information come from?" We are not sure exactly, however there are multiple evidence that RNA and its constituents can appear naturally. In fact we found ALL RNA and DNA base types in meteorites

[@tomroyca]

@@spamm0145 "Also mutations are a corruption of the original code without intent or purpose" Wrong. There are multiple types of mutations. Some are harmful, some are beneficial and majority are neutral. For example one can make an analogy using words: There are instructions to build "door". If you copy those instructions and make one mistake by replacing one letter, then you get "daor". This is nonsense and will not produce any results. It can be harmful, however, luckily we have 2 copies. If one of the copies reads "door" and another one reads "daor" then you will still be able to build doors from those instructions. If after some time you suddenly get a copy where it reads the word "daor" in reverse, then you get a new meaningful word - "road". So in this case you will be able to build both the "door" and the "road" from 2 different copies of same instructions. This is how mutations work more or less.

[@tomroyca]

@@spamm0145 " if I alter 2+2=4 to 2+2=5, it is new information but does it allow the code to function as intended and how on earth would this solve problems like 'flight' that requires high levels of knowledge and understanding in physics, math, engineering, and aerodynamics." Your analogy is misleading. In some cases you can get a bad formula like 2+2=5. This will definitely be harmful. However, in many cases you will get something like 2+2+2+2+2+2==> resulting in the increase of a total amount of proteins built from the same instructions, thus adding functionality

[@DrOpPsHoTtEd]

Peterson Peterson Peterson Peterson Peterson Peterson Peterson Peterson Peterson Dudes broken

[@ChickenHunter08]

Omfg. Over thirty minutes to get to this guy admitting his true argument: how did life form? He was so disingenuous. “No new genetic information can be created.” When he was truly asking, how do we go from non living to living. I hate this caller.

[@ChickenHunter08]

No offense to Peterson. I feel like I wasted thirty minutes, because the caller had a bad faith question. Granted. I’m happy about the evidence Peterson provided.

[@Sparkydr07]

DNA is not a code and complexity is not an argument for design !! Humans have assigned representations to DNA to make it look like a code to help our understanding Simplicity is a better argument for design

[@killer660]

HOMIE! that's what I keep thinking when these mfers keep saying that DNA is a biological code and I'm saying the same thing as what you comment lmao. Definitely simplicity is better but I think Peterson does have problems on trying to make it sound simpler bcuz then they will take that simple explanation and run with it about some other thing to try to dunk on him and be like "well you said this is what it is!"

[@Virtualblueart]

Biology looks to me like a Rube Goldberg machine that does a function but in a roundabout way and without starting out with a goal. It's not like a watch that was designed exactly for its function.

[@tonydorsett33]

It's really the peak of irony that a creationist is accusing science of operating on faith. No, science operates on deductive reasoning. It can not be faith by definition. Yet the theists explanation is literally magic. It's always a giant argument from ignorance.

[@KyleTranel]

I beg of you to control these conversations a bit more because at some point it becomes so muddled when these guys jump from point to point. They are purposely evading questions and just preaching what we’ve all heard 1000x.

[@bsmith8166]

Why are these people always so angry?

[@CeezGeez]

"Hey i don't wanna buy this table. It's made of pre-existing molecules!"

[@brandonsavage1023]

This guy pops up in a lot of TikTok debates, and nice people like “Ceasetoknow” placate him because he normally is pretty civil but wow he’s so obnoxious and self-righteous

[@thedrizzle21]

The way he keeps saying "Peterson" seems so condescending

[@displacegamer1379]

So some of you may have noticed that he keeps saying his name over and over whenever he starts talking to him. This is a debate tactic.

[@danpettinger1353]

Similar technique as used by Second Hand Car Salesmen, Time Share sharks and general Grifters.

[@patriceriksson7924]

I hope that kid will be free from the opression of faith.

[@hindsight2022]

He has faith because he understands the fallicies of science these days . The bible is better than current science

[@JavardoMusic]

@@hindsight2022huh? The bible is wrong in every aspects.

[@hindsight2022]

@@JavardoMusic cool story bro

[@pavld335]

@@hindsight2022 do you honestly believe that?

[@hindsight2022]

@@pavld335 yes sir. If given the choice science is the assumptions of man . The bible is inspired by God . Let's try go ahead and give me any aspect of science and I will tell you the assumption it's based on. I am well versed in many of the sciences .

[@MiceAndWar]

Just because a creationists studied an idea doesn't mean creationism is the correct answer. That guy contradicted himself all over the place. There are religious scientists today who separate the religion from the scientific research.

[@eddieryan7246]

Someone needs to show this guy all the different components of genes, how they work, their structure and how they change. Genes are like a book, that changes a letter every now and again. Eventually the whole book will be completely different and would be a book about something else rather than the original topic of the book

[@danielgautreau161]

He could just ask a biologist for some book titles, but he's lazy and arrogant.

[@hindsight2022]

So your book would make no sense the whole time in between .. bad analogy .

[@eddieryan7246]

@hindsight2022 99% of DNA is junk DNA anyway so most DNA doesn't code for protein. If you made it so that copies of books with completed words are more likely to be copied to the next 'generation' then it does make sense. You just have to apply the base idea with the context of how biology and natural selection works

[@zachrichardson5581]

​@@hindsight2022nope you're thinking about too literally. The hypothetical book never "made sense" in the first place. It's a particular mix of letters that isn't in any intelligible order. Then it gradually changes into another particular mix of letters. For example: "ucfhvjfuduudfusyducjcjivoivuydssaw" Going to this "ggifirireuywwwasxcvbnzykmmonbgofiufyd" Neither of those makes sense correct? That isn't the point. It's just whatever order it exists in and we identify that order as a name.

[@hindsight2022]

@@zachrichardson5581 oh ok . But the analogy I used still fits . DNA can not simply be changed without I'll effects . The ratio of deleterious to beneficial mutations would not allow for what you are proposing.

[@ChickenHunter08]

At 23 mins when you ask him to provide his qualifiers and he goes off… I almost threw my phone at the wall.

[@kenthovindscpa9466]

He was raised by evangelical parents who made him watch Kent Hovind videos😂😂😂😂

[@kfsea]

What does this angry little man think a mutation is? By definition it’s the change of something that already exists.

[@CeezGeez]

by his logic, one couldn't invent a new word because then you;'re using pre-existing letters

[@sevencrickets9258]

@@CeezGeez You can invent new words....with your mind. Information requires mind.

[@CeezGeez]

@@sevencrickets9258 why does information require a mind?

[@hailsagan8886]

​@@sevencrickets9258therefore,the Christian god exists? Lol

[@sevencrickets9258]

@@hailsagan8886 Short answer. Yes. Long answer, go watch the Bahnsen Stein debate.

[@ricklehman8097]

The common Sparrow, introduced to the US in the mid 1800's, has spread throughout the Americas, & changed to adapt to different environments: Body size, wing size, beak shape, coloration... Some have even begun to diverge genetically- in less than 200 years.

[@mrcolbyii181]

prof Dave said every mutation is new information.

[@Slum0vsky]

It's definitional; this caller wants to see new species popping out of thin air by magic, like it happens in his holy book and it doesn't happen... who loses here?

[@bllla]

Wouldn’t it be like making new words with the same letters?

[@bllla]

I don’t understand what issue he is pointing out

[@sevencrickets9258]

There is a distinction between words, and amalgamations of letters. One conveys information, one is worthless.

[@alkaline8608]

This guy is insufferable and the worst part is he left this debate thinking he won, blind to how ignorant he is.

[@ahoonter9273]

"I'm here to put you in your place tonight" bruh that's WILD 💀

[@Woodwork-Learner]

He mentioned code at the end. AI can now generate code so not all computer code is created by humans. The argument God did it is so weak.

[@SchiwiM]

And forks pretty much show how evolution and speciation works, you copy the code and modify it until a new program occurs, this one will be very similar in the beginning but changes even more with time until the Netscape Navigator looks like Mozilla Firefox or Staroffice looks like Openoffice

[@esamullajee3273]

I hear this and most of this argument stems from English being complicated. I remember doing philosophy of language in school and brushing things off as "ah semantics" is really problematic.

[@walkergarya]

Providing evidence to an indocrinated fool who does not value or understand evidence is pointless.

[@Slum0vsky]

This caller incarnates the quote for Civilization: Alpha Centauri game: "Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist. - Academician Prokhor Zakharov"

[@patriceriksson7924]

I loved that game! Designing my own units. The story in it.

[@snaptrap5558]

"We see animals produce after their kind" Just like evolution says

[@Garfieldlysanya]

Step 1: produce evidence of the Creator

[@tomroyca]

Evolution isn't about individual organizms adaptation. It is about population

[@BluePhoenix_]

The very first question in this already presents an extremr misunderstanding of the many different processes involved in evolution. This guy uses the same catchphrases as Hovind does...

[@scottbroadfoot3530]

I love how theists want to know every detail of every action but when asked to explain how God did it or could do it, silence. They just will not accept I know your book was written by men and men invented your idea of God. No real god exists. That's it sorry, but live with it. We manage just fine without any of it.

[@aaronrandall1465]

It was over at 14:09. Good job, Pete.

[@disgracetologic]

Exactly the point I was like... "okay, you just admitted it will count"... why was he keep going...

[@Bunny99s]

I start with a text file that contains the words "Hello World!". Now I duplicate the second word and get "Hello World World!". Now I mutate the second word by randomly eleminating the "W" and the "r" by random events like "radiation" hitting those characters. I end up with "Hello old World!" which is clearly different content from which I started and all I've done is "duplicating" an existing word and then mutate the content of that word (in this case I just removed characters) and I end up with something that did not exist before.. This process could be repeated over and over again and you may end up with Romeo and Juliet. His definition what counts as "new" just doesn't fit the definition of any information science. He also only thinks in "beneficial" / "good" and "non-beneficial" ( "bad" mutations. However that's not how the world works. There are mutations which are neutral. So they aren't "sieved out" by natural selection because they don't harm the organism. However several such mutations can result into something more complex that actually does something in the future. I don't get why he rejects duplication as new information. DNA only consists of 4 basis elements G, A, C and T. EVERYTHING in the DNA are just those 4 elements. So you could always claim "Well this quintillion long DNA strand is not new information because it's just copies of G A C and T sequences and they existed before...". So everything just revolves around his rejection of what counts as "new" information.

[@tomroyca]

His main claim is that we do not know where this original information came from. Therefore nothing you present would count, as every mutation uses exactly same bases. Even if you show him an IS-elements, he will claim it is not new, because those sequences already existed somewhere. Or the simplest insertion of a single nucleotide into a sequence will be considered as "changing of an existing code". You cannot win here because he is starting with dogma and dogma cannot change by definition. You will probably have to show him an organism with new type of nucleotide which didn't exist in the past. But even then he will claim it's all gods plan 🤦

[@TypicalEveningPictures]

This guy actually understood everything. Couldn’t handle it emotionally and so made up a bunch of bullshit that he thinks proves it wrong. He is also wrong about computer code it was created naturally. No supernatural ability was required.

[@TypicalEveningPictures]

He also can’t answer his own question

[@peterwyetzner5276]

"We watch people create things all the time." Yes, with hands, tools, plans, production facilities, funding, organizational structures, etc. So where are these things in this case?

[@peterwyetzner5276]

The Bible doesn't say that animals produce offspring after their kind; it says that trees and plants produce fruit according to their kind.

[@Virtualblueart]

If you remove a gene and it comes back it means it "re-evolved". It's still a new gene even if it is an exact replacement.

[@snaptrap5558]

"You take by FAITH that something in the past produced something other than its kind" Ah, the Hovind is strong with this one, lol

[@rogantu]

I love it when a religious person says evolution can't be real because of this flaw of the human body, and then they completely woosh the fact that this also applies to their god belief. If our jaws are wrong, then you are saying your god designed the jaws wrong or is actively making them wrong.

[@hymenpierce]

The caller obviously has no clue that they witness evolution in bacteria every day.......

[@LanceHall]

He's using the "this one thing disproves" fallacy and at the same not understanding the actual science. Meanwhile the vast preponderance of evidence supports evolution.

[@MartinGentile-fv5sk]

Guest says 'I shouldn't use the term new information (instead use 'change') but CONTINUES to say new information, WTF!

[@celiand2618]

His two headed turtle and 5 legged sheep are NOT EVEN mutations. He needs to be presented with the mechanisms, but that was not the good day.

[@BluePhoenix_]

Exactly, those were absorbed/conjoined twins.

[@snaptrap5558]

"The pool of options that dont work is greater than the pool of options that do" This dude just proved that it's impossible to win the lottery

[@snaptrap5558]

That went from "I'm honestly just curious" to "I AM CHALLENGING YOU ON THIS" real fast, lol

[@LanceHall]

He read Darwin so at least he's up to date with 19th century science

[@BaronVonQuiply]

It's always frustratingly entertaining when there is a teacher and a poor student, and one of them is mistaken about who is which.

[@YKDATRUTH]

I thought evolution was descent with modification.Why does he keep asking for a new gene?

[@madara211000]

Because he's dishonest

[@cerealdude890]

He said you cannot put a green ball with blue balls and shuffle them up to create new information. That’s a start of analogy but a better one would be letters in a sequence. You can shuffle them around ad infinitum to create countless sequences of varying complexity. Every novel, textbook, letter, poem, etc. that will ever exist are different sequences of a small number of letters.

[@alkaline8608]

His entire argument is "nuh uh"

[@XiagraBalls]

By his logic: - raindrops could never produce streams or rivers - letters can never be used to produce new words - the sounds we produce could never produce a diverse set of languages - notes on a sheet of music can never be re-arranged to produce a new symphony - primary colours can never be mixed to produce new colours - binary code could never be re-arranged to produce videos, images, music, animations...

[@Hunt8rJob]

This caller keeps wondering why petersen is asking the same question and doesn't think to stop and wonder if its because he ain't answering it!

[@mattikaronen7728]

Every change is new information. It’s that easy…

[@user-lb8qx8yl8k]

Question for the guy who went to the Ken Hovind school of psuedoscience. Chimps and humans share a very high percentage of their genes. Correct me if I'm wrong but it's your belief that the small difference in the chimp-human genetic makeup, cannot be attributed to the mutations from the time of the split. If that's your belief then why are you so sure?

[@corringhamdepot4434]

By his logic you could never write a "new" computer program because you are only using existing computer commands. War and Peace is not a "new" book because all the words already exist in my dictionary. The only things that "exist" are things that have physical existence. Complexity and relationships do not really "exist", so if they change that does not count as being something "new". Another typical apologist who uses his own word definitions to win arguments. Who will then probably argue that something is more than the sum of it's parts, to prove that consciousness is something greater than just a bunch of neurons.

[@leventehorvath8562]

You have the patience of a saint... Hats off to you Mr. Peterson!

[@warlorddoug18]

If you have a log of wood scoop out a chunk its no longer a log of wood, it can be a new seat with a new function. This dude seems to believe that creation is spontaneous and not transformative which makes sense if you already believe god created out of nothing.

[@therosrex5488]

Want an example of new information entering the genome, giving a beneficial trait? The mammalian placenta is the result of a viral infection. Where the viral genome was inserted into the mammalian germ line, resulting in a placenta forming, which has lead to our entire method of reproduction

[@skittleskidofsolaire7241]

I despise when people call evolution a religion, because it’s not blindly followed. It’s facts backing up a belief. It is easier to mold facts around your beliefs than to base your beliefs on facts.

[@KalifUmestoKalifa]

One example of a mutation that results in new genetic information is gene duplication followed by divergent evolution. Here's how it works: 1. A segment of DNA is duplicated, resulting in 2 copies of a gene. This can happen due to errors in DNA replication or through processes like unequal crossing over during meiosis. 2. Over time, mutations accumulate in one of the gene copies. These mutations can alter the function of the duplicated gene, leading to new or specialized functions. Example: The evolution of the antifreeze proteins (AFPs) in Antarctic fish. - A duplication event in an ancestral fish gene (e.g., a gene coding for a digestive enzyme). - Mutations in one of the duplicated genes led to a new function, creating a protein that prevents ice crystal formation in the blood. - The antifreeze protein is a novel genetic function that allows the fish to survive in freezing temperatures. This process introduces new genetic information because the duplicated gene acquires mutations that confer a new function, which did not exist before.

[@Bunny-ns5ni]

This debate was not very good, not because the theist doesn't understand evolution, nor accepts verifiable evidence when asking a question and given an answer, but also on the part of peterson. I study evolutionary biology, and phylogeny, and there are so many things that were not mentioned or talked about, or even ignored by the theist. Terrible debate on both sides, and that is incredibly frustrating The biggest problem is yhat the theist is asking for something that can't happen with evolution, and therefore thinks evolutionary mechanisms are false. So much wrong here Edit: I can barely finish this debate. The theist is so willfully ignorant, dishonest, and keeps shifting goalposts. It's impossible not to show visible frustration from this.

[@BaronVonQuiply]

_"We built a new road on the edge of town that takes you directly to the lake, you should check it out this weekend."_ *You can't just turn existing roads on and off!*

[@flapjackboy]

If I have one $5 bill and somebody hands me a second one, do I still only have a single $5 bill? That's essentially the argument this guy's making.

[@attichatchsound-bobkowal5328]

The caller was basically asking for an example of making something from nothing. Also using the noun " code" in describing the components of DNA is entirely different than the verb " code" used in binary programming. Look for " When Code is Not Code" by Patrick Lockerby for a thorough delineation.

[@improvgm8663]

This guy show his problem. He hears a small part of a fact and extrapolates that to mean what he already thinks.

[@BaronVonQuiply]

Thank you for your sacrifice 💵😢 **plays Taps but then shifts into Thrift Shop**

[@bradleyson]

Why is this guy barking at a small KZbinr and not having conversations with university biologists and evolution scientists? He seems so confident and yet the consensus remains firmly in the corner of Evolution by natural selection. As firm as Theory of Gravity I’ll add

[@anlacombe]

I get the impression some of these guys who deny current scientific understanding like to argue with people who don't agree with them just to hone their rhetoric so they sound more authoritative when they preach to the ignorant

[@adriannabcustomfurniture]

Exactly. Also, yes he's a small KZbinr, but that's because his full LIVES are on TikTok. I don't use TikTok. I wish his entire debates were always uploaded here 😂 but yeah, just in case you didn't know. He's not just a small KZbinr lol

[@adriannabcustomfurniture]

​@@anlacombe Yup. They like to hear themselves talk, like to argue, be condescending, think they know everything, etc...when someone like this guy says, "false"...I want to backhand him lol his smug face and ignorant answers and opinions drove me nuts 🤯

[@Abeleko]

The moment you see the demeanor change at the moment the term “kind” gets mentioned, you can be sure you are talking to a Kent Hovind subscriber. As deceptive and wrong as Hovind is, you gotta give respect to his overall effectiveness. Guys like that make you realize you ain’t changing religious minds so easily if that’s your goal.

[@jeffhough7460]

Every mutation is new information, it is almost always unnoticeable and sometimes negative not assisting the organism to survive, however it can in fact be a positive change that helps the organism to survive and reproduce this happening over and over in a population provides evolution in a larger scale thru natural selection and sexual selection and bandaging badaboom we have lizards that keratin genes became feathers

[@DEEBARU]

Even if a gene duplicates its still not new information. If you photocopy a document, its still the same information from the original

[@H.hipster]

He was absolutely trying to get a gotcha moment

[@AIin1771]

evolution does not depend upon what he expects as an example

[@azazelsiad3601]

Went from Dunning Krueger to Kent Hovind real fucking quick once he mentioned “kind”.

[@ChickenInTheRaw4]

This is possibly one of the most annoying people to join

[@optimus_rhymes6955]

As someone that had to have 3 wisdom teeth cut out, I’d say the fact that wisdom teeth are the most common teeth for people to be born without. I’d consider that a “good” example of evolution. Oh btw, I was born with 3 wisdom teeth.

[@madara211000]

Why does focusing on the probability of something that has already occurred matter? The probability is 100% since it already happened. IT doesn't matter if somehow the probability is 1:1,000,000,000,000 or something, it already happened, move on.

[@lovesjersey]

Genes replicate Sometimes during that process, they mutate. Genetiv mutations are, by definition, nee genetic information. What more is needed?

[@ClayManIon]

Its not "new" information. It's information expressed differently...

[@Weirdaman]

HAHAHA, holy shit, where did you get this guy. XD

[@tsolum4126]

Did anyone think to drug test this disturbed young man prior to the discussion? He needs to be picked up for a DUI. Debating Under the Influence.

[@kurln]

We do not see anything created. We see things assembled from existing. Also, arrogance and ignorance is not a pretty thing.

[@Mike-xw4gm]

Who is the guy in the video?

[@sophie1234844]

Peterson gave him examples and he Flat out rejected it. Even if he debated was Forrest of the atheist experience he would still reject it. This is one of those theist you can't have debate with because it will always be. No it can't, no it can't, no it can't, the god I believe in is the answer.