Speaker 1: Hello and welcome to my podcast. This is an audio
Speaker 1: version of my videos available to make listening to my
Speaker 1: stuff in the background easier than YouTube makes it. But
Speaker 1: since my videos are primarily made for YouTube, there may
Speaker 1: be occasional references to visual materials. If you'd like this
Speaker 1: podcast ad free, you can join us on Patreon app,
Speaker 1: Patreon dot com slash Vice Rhino. Please enjoy.
Speaker 2: Today's video is brought to you by surf Shark. Hello
Speaker 2: and welcome to my channel Vice Rhino. Here today, I
Speaker 2: remembered that I started covering one of Mike Wingers ten
Speaker 2: Questions live streams that was specifically asking for skeptic questions,
Speaker 2: and then forgot about it after question one. So here
Speaker 2: I am to give it another look. I'm not sure
Speaker 2: how many of them I'm gonna do, but I do
Speaker 2: know for a fact that there's at least a couple that,
Speaker 2: should I decide to eventually cover, the whole stream will
Speaker 2: be skipped. But number two is not one of them.
Speaker 2: So let's take a look at question two. But first
Speaker 2: a word from our sponsor, surf Shark. Are you worried
Speaker 2: about privacy on the Internet in this day and age?
Speaker 2: If not, you probably should be and one of the
Speaker 2: most important tools in the privacy toolbox is serf Shark VPN.
Speaker 2: Serf SHARKVPN is a virtual private network which allows you
Speaker 2: to appear to be connected to the Internet from any
Speaker 2: location where surf shark has a server. By connecting through
Speaker 2: surf Shark, you can access streaming services from different geographic locations.
Speaker 2: This means that you may have access to additional libraries
Speaker 2: of movies and TV shows not available in your home area.
Speaker 2: But that's not all they do. With their clean Web
Speaker 2: two point zero features, you can automatically block ads, reject
Speaker 2: unwanted cookies without fumbling through the pop up first, get
Speaker 2: alerts when a website was a target of a data breach,
Speaker 2: and block malware. Surf SHARKVPN adds an extra layer of
Speaker 2: encryption to your devices, keeping you secure on public networks.
Speaker 2: I always connect to the public networks through surf Shark.
Speaker 2: Serf Shark VPN is easy to use and simple to install.
Speaker 2: They do not monitor, track, restore your data, and it
Speaker 2: works on phones, laptops and tablets with no extra fees.
Speaker 2: Serf Shark offers a thirty day money back guarantee so
Speaker 2: you can try it out completely risk free. My viewers
Speaker 2: get a special promo where you can get extra four
Speaker 2: months out of your subscription for free. Go to surf
Speaker 2: shark dot com slash rhino or use code Rhino at
Speaker 2: check out to get an extra four months of surf SHARKVPN. Again,
Speaker 2: that's surf shark dot com slash RICHI and O for
Speaker 2: an extra four months for free. This is a limited
Speaker 2: time offer, so sign up today and remember by signing
Speaker 2: up for surf rek VPN, you're helping to support my channel,
Speaker 2: So thank you.
Speaker 3: All right, Andre Kirria has the following question. I have
Speaker 3: a coworker that is an atheist. He said that there
Speaker 3: are parts of our bodies that are not necessary and
Speaker 3: that might prove evolution and not a creator. Any thoughts.
Speaker 2: It doesn't bode well for the rest of the stream
Speaker 2: that when his first question from an actual person rather
Speaker 2: than a prepared question isn't actually from a skeptic, but
Speaker 2: from someone who knows a skeptic. But to address the
Speaker 2: actual question, this isn't something that would disprove the general
Speaker 2: concept of God, just something that disproves the younger creationist
Speaker 2: view of God. You.
Speaker 3: I have several thoughts on that. First off, personally, I
Speaker 3: would want to avoid focusing on evolution with a non
Speaker 3: believer and focusing on that topic more for like in
Speaker 3: house Christian discussions that it.
Speaker 2: Looks like Mike is going to waffle on this one
Speaker 2: rather than come out with the stance either four or
Speaker 2: against evolution. He's just going to leave a vague so
Speaker 2: that he can avoid alienating his followers that fall on
Speaker 2: either side of this debate. But it makes him look weak.
Speaker 2: He's not willing to take a stand on the side
Speaker 2: of reality and just say, yeah, evolution happens and that
Speaker 2: doesn't disprove Christianity. He is likely going to say something
Speaker 2: along the lines of, well, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't,
Speaker 2: I don't know, but either way, it doesn't disprove Christianity,
Speaker 2: which to me says that he doesn't accept evolution. Because
Speaker 2: the fact of the matter is that denying demonstrable facts
Speaker 2: about reality like evolution can only serve to make Christians
Speaker 2: look bad. So the only reason to waffle about it
Speaker 2: is if you deny evolution and don't want to alienate
Speaker 2: the segment of your audience that accepts it.
Speaker 3: I know that that's going against the grain, and most
Speaker 3: people would not agree with me on that.
Speaker 2: Statistically speaking, most Christians believe in evolution, and I'd imagine
Speaker 2: that most of them don't actually care much about it
Speaker 2: either way. So his saying most people would disagree with
Speaker 2: him on that indicates that the circles he's used to
Speaker 2: running him contain a whole lot fundamentalist evangelicals who usually
Speaker 2: lead with a denial of evolution as a prerequisite per belief.
Speaker 3: Maybe I'm wrong, Okay, this is Take this as like,
Speaker 3: this guy on the internet has a thought that you
Speaker 3: can think about. I would avoid this topic. There are
Speaker 3: Christians who believe in evolution and Christians who do not.
Speaker 3: And you may say, well, obviously one side is wrong.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's the side who do not believe in evolution.
Speaker 3: That are wrong. I want to focus on the topics
Speaker 3: that bring this person to christ. Does that make sense.
Speaker 3: One way to do this is to try to draw
Speaker 3: out the implications of evolution.
Speaker 2: And also he's just trying to have it both ways here.
Speaker 2: Evolution doesn't matter one way or the other. But come on,
Speaker 2: you don't really believe in that stuff.
Speaker 3: Do you? So this is this is true. I've heard
Speaker 3: many skeptics say evolution means that you know, we don't
Speaker 3: need a god or string theory. If vibrating strings are
Speaker 3: really the source of all the matter and everything we
Speaker 3: see in the universe, then we don't need a god.
Speaker 2: Excuse the fuck out of me. Why are you talking
Speaker 2: about string theory in response to a question or evolution? Like,
Speaker 2: even if you're going the six kinds of evolution route,
Speaker 2: where everything in the universe that both changes and proves
Speaker 2: the universe to be old is evolution, it must be
Speaker 2: denied string theory is not on that list.
Speaker 3: Or the multiverse theory that if you trace back the
Speaker 3: origin of the universe to there being just multiple universes,
Speaker 3: there's so many universes that surely enough some of them
Speaker 3: are going to have the perfect situation for life that
Speaker 3: this means we don't need a god.
Speaker 2: Sure, and at least this one could fit into the
Speaker 2: six kinds of evolution thing. But I would just like
Speaker 2: to remind everyone that the question was about vestigial structures
Speaker 2: in the body, not string theory or the multiverse.
Speaker 3: All of these arguments make the same flaw is they
Speaker 3: have an artificial stopping point for their explanatory power.
Speaker 2: Hey, Mike, what do you think God is if not
Speaker 2: an artificial stopping point. The difference here is that when
Speaker 2: an atheist stops at the Big Bang and says we
Speaker 2: don't know what came before it, that is an honest
Speaker 2: position based on a lack of available data, but taking
Speaker 2: it a step further back into the unknown and saying
Speaker 2: God is not something that is supported by the data.
Speaker 2: So actually, the Big Bang isn't really an artificial stopping point.
Speaker 2: It's just the point at which we cannot say with
Speaker 2: certainty what came before it. Meanwhile, God absolutely is an
Speaker 2: artificial stopping point, but it's also one that you have
Speaker 2: to jump to with no good reason.
Speaker 3: I don't need to explain where the strings come from,
Speaker 3: or I don't need to explain where the multiple universes
Speaker 3: come from these infinite universes.
Speaker 2: I would be willing to bet a lot of money
Speaker 2: that Mike wouldn't be happy about the idea of me
Speaker 2: asking him to explain where God comes from, because he
Speaker 2: defines God as always having existed and not needing a cause.
Speaker 2: You see, and defining it like that means you don't
Speaker 2: need to explain it.
Speaker 3: I don't need to explain on the evolution question, how
Speaker 3: on Earth things were so coincidently put together in a
Speaker 3: way that intelligent life would form purely by force of
Speaker 3: chemical reactions with no controls.
Speaker 2: No controls isn't entirely accurate. The laws of physics act
Speaker 2: as controls. As I have pointed out in previous videos,
Speaker 2: the development of life is an expected result of the
Speaker 2: laws of thermodynamics. Think of a water source at the
Speaker 2: top of a smooth, featureless hill. The top of the
Speaker 2: hill is the low entropy state, the bottom of the
Speaker 2: hill is the high entropy state, and the second law
Speaker 2: of thermodynamics ensures that not only will the water always
Speaker 2: flow down hill, but it will always do so by
Speaker 2: following the path of least resistance. On our hypothetical smooth hill,
Speaker 2: no particular path is favored at first, but through natural
Speaker 2: randomness present in the movement of the molecules, eventually the
Speaker 2: water will start to erode some places more than others.
Speaker 2: Once that begins, more of the water will end up
Speaker 2: in the eroded channels, causing the rate of erosion to
Speaker 2: speed up until distinct pathways are formed. These pathways are
Speaker 2: more complex than are perfectly smooth hill, but they allow
Speaker 2: the water to get from its initial low entropy state
Speaker 2: to the final high entropy state much more efficiently. Thermodynamically speaking,
Speaker 2: life is a chemical process that takes relatively low entropy
Speaker 2: energy from the Sun and takes it to a high
Speaker 2: entropy state much more efficiently than would happen without life.
Speaker 2: Life is the eroded channel allowing the water to flow
Speaker 2: through it. To rephrase a little, life is the universe's
Speaker 2: way of turning sunlight into poop with maximum efficiency. So
Speaker 2: there's no controls in the sense that the universe doesn't
Speaker 2: actually care which part of the hypothetical hill gets eroded,
Speaker 2: but there are controls in the sense that the hill
Speaker 2: will get eroded and the channels will form. We just
Speaker 2: happen to be the channel that formed in our little
Speaker 2: corner of the universe.
Speaker 3: That's a big leap, Like if you were to say
Speaker 3: our reject evolution and therefore clearly we're designed. Some could
Speaker 3: say aliens did it. Then you have to ask where
Speaker 3: the aliens come from, because that's artificial stopping point too.
Speaker 2: And that tells me that you haven't actually read up
Speaker 2: on any of these serious proposals for how life originated.
Speaker 2: Because the closest thing to alien did it that it's
Speaker 2: actually taken seriously is based on the fact that the
Speaker 2: building blocks of life have been found to form spontaneously
Speaker 2: on meteoroids while they are in space, and that those
Speaker 2: building blocks were able to survive the meteoroid becoming a meteorite, and.
Speaker 3: You would eventually get back to God. But let's suppose
Speaker 3: that you were to affirm, no, no, no, we really
Speaker 3: did evolve. It started with just like big bang boom,
Speaker 3: a bunch of hydrogen boom splits up into different kinds
Speaker 3: of atoms and chemicals in the universe.
Speaker 2: Stop talking, Mike, You're only embarrassing yourself. Hydrogen does not
Speaker 2: split up into different types of atoms, it fuses into them.
Speaker 2: If you can't even get that basic of a fact right,
Speaker 2: then why should I trust that you understand enough about
Speaker 2: this topic to actually come to any meaningful conclusion one
Speaker 2: way or the other.
Speaker 3: And you've got energy and matter in dark matter, and
Speaker 3: you've got all this stuff in eividually Sun's form and
Speaker 3: planet's form, and then water and two oh.
Speaker 2: Again, not to be potantic, Okay, that's a lie. Absolutely
Speaker 2: to be pedantic. You know that water is H two
Speaker 2: oh right, it's not and H two o H two
Speaker 2: oh literally is water now dihydrogen monoxide on the other hand,
Speaker 2: is a completely different thing. Am I being too nitpicky here?
Speaker 2: Quite possibly, But that is two incredibly basic mistakes within
Speaker 2: ten seconds of each other. Remember, he is trying to
Speaker 2: explain why all of this means that we should believe
Speaker 2: in God. What he is inevitably going to land on
Speaker 2: is some form of we don't understand X, therefore it
Speaker 2: must have been God. But I would argue that if
Speaker 2: your scientific knowledge is limited enough that you find yourself
Speaker 2: making mistakes like saying hydrogen splits apart to make other atoms,
Speaker 2: or talking about H two O and water like they
Speaker 2: are two separate things, then you do not have enough
Speaker 2: of an understanding of the topic to actually come to
Speaker 2: the conclusion that scientists don't understand it.
Speaker 3: And then some chemical reactions happen that go from non
Speaker 3: life to life, and then some chemical reactions take place
Speaker 3: where that life starts to actually have natural selection going on,
Speaker 3: and that eventually continues to develop and grow until we
Speaker 3: have intelligent life today. And that it all happened, you
Speaker 3: could say by random, but it all happened, Let's be
Speaker 3: more specific, based upon the fundamental nature of chemical interactions,
Speaker 3: the laws of physics, and the quantities of what materials
Speaker 3: are in the universe.
Speaker 2: Oh wow, would you look at that? It actually is
Speaker 2: possible for an apologist to understand that chemicals interacting as
Speaker 2: described by the laws of physics is not a random thing.
Speaker 2: At least he understands it when he thinks it'll help
Speaker 2: his case.
Speaker 3: Those are some really big claims.
Speaker 2: Are they, though? Life that is capable of developing in
Speaker 2: a universe like ours developed in a universe like ours.
Speaker 2: If the universe were different, it's possible that a different
Speaker 2: form of life would have developed. It's also possible that
Speaker 2: the laws of physics are a brute fact. They cannot
Speaker 2: be otherwise, And if they aren't, then regarding the extreme
Speaker 2: unlikeliness of our specific universe developing, it's also possible that
Speaker 2: there are a potentially infinite number of universes, which means
Speaker 2: that there are a bunch of universes similar enough to
Speaker 2: ours to support life like ours. Now, please entertain a
Speaker 2: hypothetical form me here, Mike. If there were no God,
Speaker 2: then in which of these universes would we expect to
Speaker 2: find life like ours? In the ones that can support it?
Speaker 2: And while I wouldn't make the same basic mistakes that
Speaker 2: Mike has here. The fact of the matter is that
Speaker 2: there are people whose knowledge of these subjects make mine
Speaker 2: look as pathetic as Mike's by comparison, and most of
Speaker 2: them fall on my side of this particular issue. In
Speaker 2: a survey of members of the American Physical Society, twenty
Speaker 2: six percent of respondents believe that the laws and constants
Speaker 2: of the universe are brute facts that need no explanation.
Speaker 2: Sixteen percent believe they are set by a principle, and
Speaker 2: twenty percent believe that they are the result of anthropic
Speaker 2: selection in a multiverse. Only nine percent believe that they
Speaker 2: are the result of intelligent design, which is the second
Speaker 2: least popular opinion. The only option that it be was
Speaker 2: that they are explained by a Darwinian process, which I
Speaker 2: think is really funny, even how frequently this gets lumped
Speaker 2: in with biological evolution by apologists like Mike.
Speaker 3: How can I you know, we get the watchmaker explanation
Speaker 3: that some people have. It's like, if you know, if
Speaker 3: you see a watch, there's a watch maker, even if
Speaker 3: you show me that the watch, Like let's say a watch,
Speaker 3: the watch was a result of a random explosion where
Speaker 3: a bunch of material that was all I don't know,
Speaker 3: iron or something. It blew up and then it just
Speaker 3: sort of fell together in just the right way to
Speaker 3: create a watch. And someone say, Mike, you've skipped natural
Speaker 3: selection and you've skipped biologically. Yeah, I get that, but
Speaker 3: try to follow the analogy. I'm not making analogy about
Speaker 3: those things.
Speaker 2: I am following the analogy. I wasn't about to talk
Speaker 2: about natural selection because you were talking about the origin
Speaker 2: of the universe. If you think you got to natural
Speaker 2: selection somehow, then you're not being entirely clear about what
Speaker 2: you're trying to analogize. So maybe just finish your analogy
Speaker 2: before responding to criticisms that aren't being made yet.
Speaker 3: Would you not say, Wow, an explosion led to that.
Speaker 3: That seems like a very carefully engine explosion. I mean,
Speaker 3: how amazing you have to be to make an explosion
Speaker 3: that results in that.
Speaker 2: Okay, So his analogy is to the Big Bang, which
Speaker 2: wasn't actually an explosion and wasn't what set the constants
Speaker 2: and the laws.
Speaker 3: Of the universe.
Speaker 2: It was itself constrained by those things. So it's an
Speaker 2: analogy that doesn't actually analogize the thing that he's trying
Speaker 2: to yay, But.
Speaker 3: The universe is more intense than that because some of
Speaker 3: the factors that are involved here. And this is what
Speaker 3: I want the atheist evolutionists to consider, is the amount
Speaker 3: of material in the universe matters. The rate that the
Speaker 3: explosion happens really really matters. Right, if it happens too
Speaker 3: fast or too slow, we don't get our universe.
Speaker 2: I'm going to skip ahead of it. Yes, all that,
Speaker 2: it matters quite a bit. It's not as precise as
Speaker 2: the apologist would have you believe, but even if it were,
Speaker 2: I would draw your attention back to the fact that
Speaker 2: the experts, really, really smart people who study this overwhelmingly
Speaker 2: think that the reason for this is not intelligent design.
Speaker 2: Its remain options were again One, they are brute facts
Speaker 2: that need no explanation. They are what they are and
Speaker 2: cannot be otherwise. So to talk about odds or chances
Speaker 2: as meaningless. There was one option, So the chances of
Speaker 2: that being the one are one hundred percent. Two anthropic
Speaker 2: selection in a multiverse, which is the whole. There are
Speaker 2: potentially infinite universes, so life arises in those universes in
Speaker 2: which it is possible for life to arise. Thing, and
Speaker 2: three the values are set by a principle such as
Speaker 2: the naturalness principle, which is the idea that a given
Speaker 2: quantum field theory might only describe nature at energies below
Speaker 2: a certain scale or cut off a statement that I'm
Speaker 2: not going to even pretend to understand. My point is
Speaker 2: that the people who actually do understand this are overwhelmingly
Speaker 2: of the opinion that a God is not a necessary
Speaker 2: part of the explanation for why the laws and constants
Speaker 2: of the universe are what they are.
Speaker 3: The table had to be set in such an intricate
Speaker 3: way for life to exist on this planet that just
Speaker 3: saying we evolved does not answer the.
Speaker 2: Question correct, but neither to saying God none did it.
Speaker 2: In fact, I would argue that using God as an
Speaker 2: explanation when you hit a wall will stop you from
Speaker 2: learning things. If we really wanted to, either of us
Speaker 2: could learn a great deal about the naturalness principle and
Speaker 2: come to understand it. Maybe not as well as the experts,
Speaker 2: but at least enough that I wouldn't have to make
Speaker 2: light of the fact that I don't even understand a
Speaker 2: basic explanation of it. For me, I won't because there's
Speaker 2: so many other things I'd rather spend my time on
Speaker 2: but Mike won't because then there would be fewer gaps
Speaker 2: in his knowledge for him to stuff God into. That is,
Speaker 2: assuming his interest in the subject is genuine and not
Speaker 2: just apologetic posturing, because honestly, if he were to take
Speaker 2: the subject and acknowledge that he knows nothing about it
Speaker 2: and so not use it one way or the other
Speaker 2: regarding the question of God's existence, then I'd have a
Speaker 2: lot more respect for him. But remember, if you want
Speaker 2: to doubt the existence of God, then you have to
Speaker 2: be an expert in every field so that you can
Speaker 2: answer every question that an apologist might have. If the
Speaker 2: answer is I don't know that, that means it must
Speaker 2: be God. But if you believe in God, then you
Speaker 2: don't have to know jack about you.
Speaker 3: You then have to ask what on Earth can explain
Speaker 3: such a particular set of circumstances that it allowed intelligent
Speaker 3: life to happen through chemical reactions like what made a
Speaker 3: hydrogen atom that shape?
Speaker 2: And then if you, most likely a layman who study
Speaker 2: of physics ended in high school at the latest, can't
Speaker 2: give a detailed explanation worthy of publication in Nature physics,
Speaker 2: then the only reasonable conclusion is that God did it,
Speaker 2: never mind that Mike is also incapable of explaining any
Speaker 2: equivalent concepts to the same degree. You only need to
Speaker 2: be an expert if you're questioning God, but if you're
Speaker 2: advocating for God, that all you need to do is
Speaker 2: not know the answers to some of the questions so
Speaker 2: that you can then use God as the answer instead.
Speaker 3: What made what made the carbon atoms? This perfect environment
Speaker 3: for life to end up developing? Carbon based life doesn't
Speaker 3: really work with anything else.
Speaker 2: Again, it's the anthropic principle. Our universe works for the
Speaker 2: development of carbon based life. Carbon based life developed in it.
Speaker 2: If the universe worked differently, then potentially life would have
Speaker 2: developed differently.
Speaker 3: Silicon based life and all. That's all good sci fi,
Speaker 3: but it doesn't work to my knowledge.
Speaker 2: The reason silicon based life is a concept in sci
Speaker 2: fi is because silicon behaves very much like carbon in
Speaker 2: a lot of ways, and so in this universe that
Speaker 2: we already live in, it seems like a decent alternative
Speaker 2: molecule for life to be based on. There are plenty
Speaker 2: of issues that make it extremely unlikely, but again, these issues,
Speaker 2: as well as its similarities to carbon, are because of
Speaker 2: the laws of physics in our universe. In a different
Speaker 2: universe with different laws of physics, it could very well
Speaker 2: be a different molecule that makes up the chemical backbone
Speaker 2: for life. And this is kind of the crux of
Speaker 2: the anthropic principle. The universe looks like it's capable of
Speaker 2: sustaining life like ours, because life like ours is what
Speaker 2: evolved in this universe. If the universe had been different,
Speaker 2: so would life if it developed at all.
Speaker 3: I would want to push them on their own worldview
Speaker 3: and show that their own beliefs about the universe already
Speaker 3: point to God. And if they go, well, multiverse, and
Speaker 3: they go what makes all those universes?
Speaker 2: And no matter what the answer, there will always be
Speaker 2: more questions which Mike will always answer with God, rather
Speaker 2: than even considering the possibility that he's just wrong.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know, like some of the universe making
Speaker 3: machine or something.
Speaker 2: How about a pre inflationary state of a soup of
Speaker 2: quantum particles in superposition. Your unwillingness to learn what cosmologists
Speaker 2: actually think on the matter in order to continue being
Speaker 2: able to answer with God does not help your case. Also,
Speaker 2: mandatory caveat that the pre inflationary quantum superposition thing is
Speaker 2: one hypothesis among many, because the actual answer at this
Speaker 2: time is we don't know, but there is no indication
Speaker 2: of God.
Speaker 3: You keep getting back to god string theory, okay, and
Speaker 3: where did the strings come from? You need some eternal
Speaker 3: uncaused thing, no matter what you start with.
Speaker 2: Okay, why could the pre inflationary quantum soup not be
Speaker 2: the eternal uncaused thing.
Speaker 3: And that's where I would go with that. As far
Speaker 3: as vestigial body parts, which you asked about, andre Ah.
Speaker 2: Right, I forgot. This was actually a question about vestigial
Speaker 2: structures in the body, and somehow that got us to
Speaker 2: string theory.
Speaker 3: In the Big Bang, he said, there are parts of
Speaker 3: our bodies that are not necessary and that might prove
Speaker 3: evolution and not a creator. Losing body parts would demonstrate
Speaker 3: evolution in the sense of some change happening, right, Yes.
Speaker 2: For instance, my usual go to example is the muscles
Speaker 2: around our ears that attempt to rotate our ears towards
Speaker 2: sounds that we hear, but fail to actually do so.
Speaker 2: Given that we don't have rotating ears.
Speaker 3: Loss loss of body parts, it could demonstrate some change happening.
Speaker 3: That's not the same as saying we all have the
Speaker 3: same common ancestor. That's a huge leap.
Speaker 2: Correct, But it's a huge leap that is supported by
Speaker 2: mountains of evidence, such as the universality of the genetic code.
Speaker 2: The genetic code is the set of rules that turn
Speaker 2: the information and coded in a genetic material into proteins.
Speaker 2: It's the code on table. Three base pairs translate into
Speaker 2: one amino acid, and the sequence of amino acids dictates
Speaker 2: the shape of the protein. There is no biological reason
Speaker 2: why every organism show would make use of the same
Speaker 2: genetic code, so the fact that they all do is
Speaker 2: a pretty good indication that the reason we do is
Speaker 2: because we all inherited it from a common ancestor. There's
Speaker 2: also the conserved genes, genes that perform some of the
Speaker 2: most basic cellular functions and which can be found in
Speaker 2: any organism you care to look at, from bacteria of
Speaker 2: mushrooms to mammals and everything in between. Sure, it is
Speaker 2: possible that God just decided to make us all with
Speaker 2: the same genetic code, but honestly, I think it would
Speaker 2: be better evidence for God if every organism use the
Speaker 2: same genetic code except for humans. That would pretty definitively
Speaker 2: put to rest the idea that we evolve from common
Speaker 2: ancestors with the other animals. But now we instead see
Speaker 2: a universal genetic code that could be designed by a creator,
Speaker 2: but fits so perfectly with every other aspect of evolution
Speaker 2: that it renders God an unnecessary part of the equation.
Speaker 3: And it's not the same as saying that abiogenesis takes place.
Speaker 3: These are just very different categories.
Speaker 2: Correct Again, Mike is aware that evolution and a biogenesis
Speaker 2: are two separate things. Way too many apologists are willing
Speaker 2: to bring up things that we don't know about abiogenesis
Speaker 2: in their case against evolution, and it does get rather
Speaker 2: tiresome explaining that abiogenesis is a different thing from evolution. So,
Speaker 2: while I am still unsure of how Mike ended up
Speaker 2: on the string theory in the response to a question
Speaker 2: about evolution, at least he knows this distinction.
Speaker 3: But I really wouldn't want to argue with him about it.
Speaker 3: You could say, well, hey, they foun out that the appendix
Speaker 3: really has a purpose and a lot of the vestigial items,
Speaker 3: which means like evolutionary leftovers, actually do have functions and
Speaker 3: purposes in humankind.
Speaker 2: Using vestigial structures as evidence for evolution does not require
Speaker 2: the vestigial structure to be completely devoid of purpose, as
Speaker 2: appears to be the case with their ear muscles. It
Speaker 2: merely requires evidence that the structure is no longer being
Speaker 2: used for a purpose that it would have had in
Speaker 2: our ancestors. So for the appendix, it was originally an
Speaker 2: extension of the secum that acted as a fermentation chamber
Speaker 2: to help our ancestors digest tough plant matter that was
Speaker 2: rich in cellulose. It lost this function as our diet diversified,
Speaker 2: but it has picked up a couple of other functions,
Speaker 2: such as regulating the gut microbiome and contributing to the
Speaker 2: maturation of some certain types of white blood cells during
Speaker 2: the development of an infant's immune system. And therein lies
Speaker 2: the problem with Mike's objection to vestigial features. We are
Speaker 2: not losing the appendix. Its function is shifting. It's evolving,
Speaker 2: one might say. People who oppose evolution usually don't accept
Speaker 2: the idea that new functions can evolve, but their objections
Speaker 2: to vestigial features usually rely on the fact that these
Speaker 2: features have evolved their way from one function to a
Speaker 2: different one.
Speaker 3: Also, losing things like losing the use of your wisdom
Speaker 3: teeth doesn't prove improvement, it just proves change.
Speaker 2: But we're losing our wisdom teeth because our jaws changed
Speaker 2: to adapt to our diet and environment. We don't need big,
Speaker 2: strong jaws like the other great apes anymore. So our
Speaker 2: jaws got smaller to better fit with what we eat,
Speaker 2: which is an improvement, except the result is that we
Speaker 2: now have too many teeth to fit into our new
Speaker 2: and improved jaws. So we are now seeing more and
Speaker 2: more people who are just born without wisdom teeth, reducing
Speaker 2: the need for surgical intervention to remove them. I'd say
Speaker 2: that that is an improvement that So for this one,
Speaker 2: today's comment to the day comes just from hiding in public,
Speaker 2: who says, I just realized you came out as by
Speaker 2: or Pan years after making your channel icon a furry.
Speaker 2: My first assumption is that any person representing themselves as
Speaker 2: a furry cannot be wholly heterosexual. Did this ever cross
Speaker 2: your mind before coming out or even realizing it yourself. Well,
Speaker 2: as far as I can tell, the difference between me
Speaker 2: and an actual furry is that I don't actually do
Speaker 2: any of the furry stuff. The rhino isn't my persona.
Speaker 2: I don't go to the conventions. I don't have an
Speaker 2: interest in art involving anthropmorphic animals any more than any
Speaker 2: other art. And I landed on a rhino because I'm
Speaker 2: bad at coming up with usernames, so I typed Eric
Speaker 2: Hovind into an anagram generator and saw vice rhino as
Speaker 2: a top result. Thought it was kind of neat, so
Speaker 2: went with that rather than looking for anything better. So No,
Speaker 2: representing myself as a furry wasn't a clue for me,
Speaker 2: because that's not what I was trying to do. It
Speaker 2: was actually more of an I don't care if people
Speaker 2: think I'm a furry thing. Come to think of it,
Speaker 2: it might be the other way around, rather than I'm
Speaker 2: representing myself as a furry, therefore I might not be
Speaker 2: entirely straight. It's more I'm not entirely straight, so I'm
Speaker 2: actually okay with people thinking I'm a furry, and of
Speaker 2: course mandatory caveat that. Well, many furries are LGBTQ. I'm
Speaker 2: sure there are straight ones as well, just as I'm
Speaker 2: sure there are at least a couple of IT professionals
Speaker 2: who are not furries. Thanks for watching. Don't forget to
Speaker 2: go to serf shark dot com slash rhyino for an
Speaker 2: extra four months for free. I'll be back next Friday
Speaker 2: with more, but if you need to get your Ryo
Speaker 2: fix in before then, I live stream of service every
Speaker 2: Wednesday eight thirty Eastern on my other channel, The Watering Hole.
Speaker 2: Thanks to Piper for being my editor, and special thanks
Speaker 2: as always to my patrons, who are the quantum soup
Speaker 2: that existed before the universe that is my channel. If
Speaker 2: you'd like to sound more delicious than you actually are,
Speaker 2: you can join us on Patreon for as little as
Speaker 2: a dollar per week over at patreon dot com, slash
Speaker 2: vice Rhino, or by supporting the channel and one of
Speaker 2: the other methods that can be found at linkst viceround
Speaker 2: dot com, which is also where you'll find links to
Speaker 2: my other projects. If for whatever reason, you want to
Speaker 2: send me stuff, my pobox addresses in the description see
Speaker 2: and next time.