Member Training – Evolution & The Conspiracy Part 2

Member training from May 5th, 2025.

This presentation, Evolution and the Conspiracy Part 2,  In this discussion, Micah challenges the mainstream narrative of evolution, highlighting how natural selection operates as a conservative process that eliminates genetic information rather than creating new traits. He explores the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, demonstrating that genetic mutations never introduce new information but merely duplicate or remove existing genetic material. Using examples from agriculture, hybrid animals, and historical atmospheric conditions, Micah illustrates how environmental factors influence organism behavior without fundamentally altering genetic structures. From pre-flood longevity to modern-day species limitations, Micah argues that adaptation is not evolution but rather the amplification or suppression of existing traits. Ultimately, Micah emphasizes that lifeforms only reproduce after their own kind and that the scientific establishment has repeatedly misled the public through faulty claims, selective interpretation, and outright deception. This is a call to critically examine foundational assumptions and reclaim a perspective grounded in observable reality.

Help support ad free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

TRANSCRIPT

Dear Heavenly Father, we're grateful for this day that we have to meet together with our friends of our society, the Liberty Tree Society, meeting together under thy spirit and love of liberty, helping us to all form new fervor for living the righteous principles of liberty and helping us to all learn together what those are and how to best practice them in as we navigate today's world and we ask you to bless those that contribute to the lesson tonight that they will share what's on their heart what they've prepared and help us all to receive it in like-mindedness and we say things in my son jesus christ amen Okay, so our last section was on the beginning of evolution, cosmic evolution, even though that's not where the study and air quotations of evolution started. It really started... Hey, Micah, sorry, real quick.

If you want to click on the three dots on more, so they'll get rid of that window. But I... High-floating meeting controls. High-floating, okay. Fantastic. Can I just drag it over to my other screen? Oh, well, whatever. You can do that, yes. I don't even know where the Zoom thing went. Okay, I can't even see Zoom now. Okay, whatever. Doesn't matter. Okay, so we start with cosmic evolution. The evolution of life is actually the first part of the study, the religion of evolution. And so we're going to start on that section. Just a little refresher. In the beginning, there was nothing. And then all that nothing was crammed into a black hole. And then all that nothing somehow exploded because reasons and created the whole universe. And then the universe started expanding at an accelerated rate from where it had violated all laws of nature. And at some point in time, the Earth was a hot ball of gooey mess. It turned into a rock after it cooled down. For whatever reason, there was a bunch of rain. It made primordial soup. And then we have our single-celled organism from that soup. Meow, meow, meow, blah, blah, blah.

And, you know, there's where old Charlie begins his thing. And so single-celled organism makes a fish, fish grows legs, becomes all kinds of creatures, eventually becomes man. So there are three types that the evolutionists claim for the evolution of life uh the third one is pretty lame um i'm not going to talk it's basically semantics so the main the main two though are there's micro evolution which is small genetic changes over a short period of time and then the second type is macro evolution which is a change of one creature into another type of creature And so they claim that microevolution, with all these small genetic changes, eventually forms a new creature. So microevolution develops into macroevolution. Now, I completely disagree with these definitions that they put forward.

I would like to call this anti-evolution, because the small genetic changes over a short period of time, which definitely can be shown and proven, but they're actually just a loss of genetic information by natural selection. So that the process of natural selection, it only eliminates genes from the gene pool. It doesn't make any new genes. And so that means that macroevolution is just fiction. So let me explain. So macroevolution is a conservative process. So it doesn't, that means that it can't create anything. So it only eliminates, it only removes genes from the gene pool. And the more it happens, the less diversity there is. And so, for example, let's say you had five elephants. One of them was red and the other four were blue. And the blue ones didn't have any dormant or submissive genes, red genes, sitting inside them.

They had nothing red. And the red elephant, it dies before it's able to procreate. So what you have there is you have now from the existing DNA for elephants, there is no longer the red elephant gene. It just doesn't exist. It's completely gone. So another example you could look at for micro-revolution would be if you had a couple of wolves, you could keep breeding them eventually until they became a very smug chihuahua. But if you had a very pure smug, chihuahua and you bred it with another pure smug chihuahua you would never get a wolf so because that particular the chihuahua gene pool doesn't have all the data in it left to make a wolf if they were like pure they purely had all that stuff gone they didn't have any submissive or dormant genes for wolf stuff so now there are some laws for procreation and There are five of them that through my observations, I have labeled them. I don't really want to say I've discovered them because other people have done so much legwork. I just kind of put names to them and definitions. So genetic information can only be duplicated or lost.

New information is never created, which we kind of went over a little bit. It's called a mutation. Genetic mutations, they do happen, but they are, well, there's some problems with them. First being that they're never new information. So, for example, so we got a cow and it's got an extra leg coming off its neck. That's pretty weird. And so that's a genetic mutation. I mean, that happened. That's real. As far as I know, this is a real photo. But that leg, it already has four legs. It already has a hoof. There was some kind of accident that happened, and an extra one grew on its neck. And I would say that this mutation is actually a problem because it's some extra appendage for some predator to grab. It doesn't really do the cow any good. Here's another one. Here's a shark with one eyeball. I have no idea if this image is real. I mean, I don't have any reason to believe it's fake, but maybe it is. it's an example mutation I found out there and so but it yet again it already had eyeballs but now it has one and it's in the wrong place so there's a mutation but there's no new genetic information So here's a duck, and it accidentally grew an extra set of legs. So same thing, just duplicate information. It's a mutation. This one, so this is a fly.

So a regular fly is on the top left there, and the mutated fly is on the bottom right. This one is actually, it's university, I think in Chicago. I don't remember where it is. Somewhere in the Midwest. And so they spent 100 years, this experiment's been going on for 100 years, where they have selectively bred these flies to have extra wings. But this is really problematic, though, because it already had the information to make extra wings. And it's even more problematic because those wings actually don't have muscles to do anything. And so this fly cannot even perform its namesake. It can't fly. The extra wings throw it off balance, and they actually force breed the proper mates with these double-winged flies to keep them alive. Yeah, it's been going on since, like, the 20s. Here's another one, the double-horned goat.

So this one actually does show up in nature every once in a while. It's pretty rare. But there's actually people that selectively breed goats to get the double horns. And this would be an example of a mutation. It already had the data to make a horn. It's just in a new place. But it doesn't seem to be a radical deficit to them. But it's not new. It's just the same information copied. But these horns, they can kill the goats. Or the sheep. Because the horns can grow. into themselves and hurt themselves so it is a thing but you know we've got the shark with the one eyeball it's pretty easy to get scratched out you know it's on the front the regular shark can roll its eyes back in its head and its eyes are on the side away from its mouth so it's less likely to go blind the cow can you know it's got something else or something to grab onto it the duck can't walk the fly can't fly and the the sheep is uh The horns aren't really doing much good, and it can actually kill itself by the horns growing into its jaw and head and everything. Now, I could agree with the evolutionists if maybe the cow grew a boxing club. Or, for some reason, the duck had a thumb. Little hand, that would be cool. Maybe if the shark had some horns, and the goat became a Terminator, and, you know,

The fly somehow adapted and grew an M249 squad automatic weapon. That would be sweet. You know, that would be a cool killer fly. So genetic information can only be duplicated or lost. New information is never created. That is perhaps the first law of procreation. The second law, all organisms return to their natural state in the wild through a variety of processes. Here is, this is regarding the planting of crops, corn specifically. The harvest of a hybrid corn plant won't produce seed genetically identical to the parent plant. So since I don't know exactly what the genetics are in that new seed, I don't want to plant next year. I should add that just about all corn grown today is hybrid corn because it performs much better than inbred corn. Even though I think this guy is a little mistaken because all the hybrid corn is actually inbred corn. We'll go over that in a moment. So here's another comment from a farmer. Without getting too deep into genetic science here, suffice it to say that the second generation of plants do not always exhibit the beneficial traits the hybrids were bred to exhibit.

For example, let's say some farmer chose a particular hybrid of corn because his soil is more sandy and he needs a variety that could withstand a drier growing season. In the first growing season, the seeds come all from the seed company and should exhibit the genetic traits that make it more drought resistant. However, if the farmer harvested the corn and tried to use those kernels as seeds in the next season, not all of the corn will demonstrate the same genetic traits. That means a certain percentage of the crop will not be as drought resistant as the first year and may not survive or produce as well in sandy soil. So, oh, she said it pretty good there. Now, the corn that they're using, it's bred to be what it is. And it's not because all the stuff that they tried to bred out of it, they didn't get it all. It's not a pure of that corn. Otherwise, the genetic information would be missing. Like a chihuahua doesn't have much left of the wolf. It doesn't have enough left of the wolf to make a wolf if you kept breeding chihuahuas. And I'm going to play, this is a short video, I think about two minutes, two and a half minutes.

And I'm going to show you a little bit of the process of all of this. The majority of the corn you see is actually a hybrid plant. You know, we really create inbreds first. So essentially we're creating the parents of the hybrids. What we do then is we'll make crosses between all these parents and evaluate essentially the children or the hybrid from the result of that cross. And then we try to sort it down. We have to test that over years to find out which one is truly the best hybrid. The tassel is where the pollen comes from. And then you have the ear, which is the silk. So the flower is actually separated in two separate components in the plant. What we have to do in a breeding nursery, we have to hand pollinate. So the seed we're after could be as much as a cup full of seed. And what hand pollination entails is really controlling pollen flow. And you'll see that when you see the bags on the tassels and the bags on the ear shoots. That's the whole concept is we need to control pollen flow.

You're physically moving pollen, yes. So we're catching it in bags and then we physically move it to where we want it to go. A lot of it is maintaining seed of the parents so we can do what we want to do. If we have a great parent, we need a lot of seed to create more hybrids. So it's really, it's all about seed management, creating seed. When we detasse, we're doing that to control pollen movement. and saying we want the pollen from this plant to pollinate this plant so when you drive around you'll see these four rows essentially with no tassels that are shorter a taller row and the pattern repeats across the entire field and that's what we're after we're wanting that pollen from that one row to pollinate the other four rows and if we're successful then we'll get ears of corn off of those four short rows and we'll harvest those And then that is the seed that actually goes into the seed bag that gets sold to growers. When you buy a bag of hybrid seed corn and you take that out, you can think there was probably seven to ten years of development time going in. It's a lot like winning the lottery.

For that hybrid, it had to beat out so many other hybrids. So many other parents were trying to get in that bag of seed, but that was the one that won it. So it's a pretty special seed when you're holding it in your hand. Okay. So the organisms going back to their natural state is such a problem that the manufacturers of these seeds are... snipping off parts of the plant to make sure certain plants can't reproduce and then putting bags and like controlling it and they're doing lots of inbreeding with all the corn and so it's a very highly selective highly controlled process and they kind of have to start from scratch for every batch because after a generation or two of their not not so strict control it just the corn just goes wild and so that's in plants and so to demonstrate this law of organisms go back um go back to the nature in the wild so we can look a little bit of animals here and okay so this article from gizmodo uh genetically modified mosquitoes are breeding in brazil despite biotech's firm's assurance to the contrary An experimental trial to reduce the number of mosquitoes in a Brazilian town by releasing genetically modified mosquitoes has not gone as planned. Traces of the mutated insects have been detected in the natural population of mosquitoes, which was never supposed to happen.

The deliberate release of 450,000 transgenic mosquitoes in Jacobina, Brazil, has resulted in the unintended genetic contamination of the local population of mosquitoes. I mean, well, nobody really cares about the mosquitoes anyway, but, you know, oh, mosquitoes! The key feature of these bioengineered mosquitoes is a dominant lethal gene that supposedly results in infertile offspring known as the F1 generation. By releasing the OX513A mosquitoes into the wild, Oxitec hoped to reduce the population of mosquitoes in the area by 90%, while at the same time not affecting the genetic integrity of the target population. I'm not sure how they could possibly claim that they wouldn't affect the genetic integrity of the target population while they're trying to do just that. As the researchers note in the study, the Oxitec scheme worked at first, resulting in a dramatic reduction in the size of the mosquito population. But at the 18 -month mark, the population began to recover, returning to nearly pre-release levels. So, basically, they got all these mosquitoes, and They released 450,000 mosquitoes, which let's just say is like a fourth of the population of mosquitoes. Who knows? And so what the conspiracy kind of wants you to think is they got their little crazy mosquito here.

And on the next batch, it's going to be the opposite. Like it's going to be majority crazy mosquito and only the natural mosquito. But that's not actually what happens. What actually happens is their little mutation. It just doesn't matter. and all of the natural mosquitoes will thrive again. And part of the report was that they're like, well, of course, the offspring of all the crappy mosquitoes, of all the defective mosquitoes, they don't really have any. So I don't know how they could possibly infect the population. They couldn't do that because it's not going to spread. And then furthermore, they found that all the female mosquitoes, were refusing to mate with the mutated mosquitoes. Like, they were just figuring out what was up. But there was something wrong with them, and they wouldn't mate with them. And so, it just, like, it didn't matter, you know. And it's the same thing with the fake pandemic. You know, they want you to think, even though it never happened, but even if it did, you know, they want you to think that they're going to put some crazy super virus into the system, you know, or some crazy bacteria or something. some disease, and it's just going to take over the world, and we're all going to be zombies, but that's not how it works.

It's anything that's been highly manufactured in some kind of lab. It just can't survive in the wild. Some other examples of this stuff. Scientists breed glow-in-the-dark rabbits. I believe they did the same thing with mice. And then... Let's see, green fluorescent protein received via DNA from father had been implanted with growing sperm, creating cells from a fluorescent mouse. There's another one. Yeah, so they did rabbits, they did mice. They did, I don't really remember what this was. They did it too. And here's some plant. They did a tobacco plant. They made the glow green as well. You know, these are all laboratory stuff. When they're done with this, they actually just killed all the rabbits, they killed all the mice. Same thing with all tobacco. But it doesn't really matter, though. They want you to think that if they release it into the wild, suddenly there's going to be a bunch of glow-in-the-dark mice and rabbits and tobacco plants running around.

But that's not even true. You have a glow-in-the-dark mouse, it's probably more likely to be caught by predators anyway. It's going to stick out a bit. And so, you know, another mice probably aren't going to want to breed with them. And even in this article, the mouse that they said breed, that it was able to create offspring, it was a miracle because it was basically infertile. But they tried really hard to get it going, and they managed to get it, and they called it a miracle. So, like, they just, nothing really works in the wild. And so, because they want you to think, you know, they get your little zombie rabbit. It's the same story as the mosquitoes, and they want you to think if they release it in the wild, There'd be three zombie rabbits and one good one. But the reality is the zombie ones all disappear and you just get the regular natural rabbits.

Back to the wolf and the smug chihuahua. There's hardly anything of the wolf left in the chihuahua. What do you think would happen if we release the chihuahua back into the wild? It can't even... I can't even bite your ankles with any force. You know, it's not going to hunt anything. It's too slow. It's too small. You know, it could be picked up by an eagle and eaten. It's just, it's not going to happen. So, we have our first law of procreation. Genetic information can only be duplicated or lost. New information is never created. All organisms return to their natural state in the wild. And if an organism goes too far from its natural state, it becomes sterile. So, we have let's go into this so this is a there's an article about hybrid incompatibility so that's like when you you breed two creatures together that are like really close, like a horse and a donkey, and you get a mule. So hybrids between closely related species are often inviolable, or if they live, they are sterile. The hybrid inviolability and sterility, collectively known as hybrid incompatibility, can reduce the exchange of genetic variants between species. Thus, hybrid incompatibility can be important in the process of speciation, by acting as a reproductive isolating barrier. Hybrid incompatibility as a phenotype is unusual, as it serves no apparent function. And yet it is so common, naturalists and philosophers since Aristotle have been puzzled by its existence. So this guy here, Norman A. Johnson, he's like, oh my gosh, we breed these things that are such identical looking creatures, and all of their offspring either is stillborn or it's sterile. And there's no reason for that to happen. That's ridiculous. We can't figure that out. Of course there's a reason for it.

There's no apparent function. That's just so you can't freaking create monsters. Like a hippogriff. If you ever saw the Harry Potter story or whatever. And even if he did, and it was a female, what's it going to mate with? There's nothing for the creature to mate with. And so it's really... There's like a rubber band around all the genetic code in the world where nothing can go too far from its natural state because it becomes infertile. The key feature of these biogenes mosquitoes is a dominant lethal gene that supposedly results in infertile offspring, as we read in the thing. But all that really happened was they selectively bred mosquitoes so far from their natural state they became infertile. They could have used CRISPR or something to put something in there in the genes as well. It does the same effect. It makes it infertile. Some examples would be a tiger and a lion. You get a liger. It's infertile. It also has bad joints. They couldn't really survive in the wild. They're too big. They're too heavy. They're arthritic. And they're infertile.

You breed a horse and a donkey, you get a mule. This creature works out okay, but it's infertile. It can't breed. Bananas. Bananas are a hybrid plantain. And it's so far from its natural state, it has no seeds. You cannot get anything out of a banana and plant it and make a banana tree. It doesn't happen. The bananas in the supermarket are an engineered product. Seedless grapes. Same thing. They've been inbred and played with so much. The reason why they're seedless is because they're too far from their natural state. They don't have seeds. They can't be planted. A tangelo, same thing, no seeds. It's too far from its natural state. And so, you know, if an organism goes too far from its natural state, it becomes sterile. So this one is a very, this is another interesting, this is a very interesting one. Certain behaviors and genetic traits are amplified in different environments. These traits are merely a change in behavior and or an amplification of existing genetic code.

And so this is the part where some people might be able to mistake, oh, they're like, oh, there's some evolution right there. And he goes, no, you got radical things in the environment that are allowing certain genetic traits of the individual, of the organism to behave differently. And so let's go over some examples of this. So single cell evolves large multicellular form in just two years. Researchers have discovered that environments favoring clumpy growth are all that's needed to quickly transform single cell yeast into complex multicellular organisms. This simple procedure, as they describe, rapidly causes the evolution of tiny clumps, yeast that have evolved to stay attached to each other. The better to survive the selected pressure exerted by the scientists. in an experiment where predators preferentially ate smaller prey unicellular algae evolved into multicellular clusters with new forms and life cycles with all within just 50 weeks and here they got some little chart of oh it's like staying together oh it's so evolved and it's basically kind of the same thing for yeast that's why i just included that little diagram and so question is is this behavior of the organism or is it evolution A macroevolution, or even a microevolution, would be an addition of genetic information.

So, yeast is a single-celled fungus, but in the wild, it sometimes grows in clumps. This happens when a yeast cell clones itself, budding an identical daughter cell, but fails to pinch the clone entirely free. These cells continue to reproduce, forming clumps. So, by the way, all yeast is cloned. And so the question is, is it behavior or evolution? And it's not evolution because there's no new genetic information. It's merely behavior. It literally, by forming clumps, it skipped a process that it does. A process was removed from its natural life cycle. So single-celled, you know, yeast, some more commentary on it. He was also thinking about one of the most famous evolution experiments. This is the guy who was writing the other one. Started by Richard Lenski. More than 30 years ago, E. coli colonies in Lenski's lab have been maintained since 1988. They morphed over the years in surprising ways. For instance, in 2003, Lenski and his colleagues found that one population had evolved the ability to digest citrate, which E. coli had never been known to do before. So, behavior? I don't know. I think this is about as significant as a dog who's eaten steak its whole life. finally succumbing to eating kibble. There's no new genetic information here. It's just behavior.

And then they even admit, honestly, these statements can be debatable because primitive forms of multicellular complexity often look like typical unicellular behavior. And that's because there's nothing different about what any of these yeast cells are ever doing. Even though they never separated, they're all still acting independently of each other. If they did happen to separate, they would still be doing the same thing. There's nothing, there's not like a brain and a stomach and like some kind of, you know, diversity of tasks. They're all still just doing the same thing they would always be doing. Let's see here. I don't even remember. Anyway, so the same thing as... you know, eventually clumps are formed because it fails to separate. And as a behavior evolution, it's just more behavior. And this is a different article where they're talking about, well, if we put different predators that eat yeast and then the yeast decides to stick up for itself and all stay together, and they go, well, it's evolution, and it's just like, oh, you know, no, no, no, no, no. And so, and the real test is That's right. That's what this article is about.

The real test is, is there ever like yeast in the wild that does this naturally? And actually, this article is all about that. It says, well, actually, we've known that yeast forms clumps in the wild forever. So it's just basically some people just making a big stink about something that's been the way it is forever. It's nothing new. Yeast has never turned into something that's not yeast. It's just not evolution. And so we have this. we have all these evidences of different environments changing the behavior of organisms but there's another level to this and that is different environments um causing a different uh the way more than behavior so it it's enabling certain organisms to to be a little different and so some of of uh science has confused a lot of this stuff And so I would like, we're going to talk a little bit about the, before the flood, before Noah's flood, a little bit about that, what was going on with that, with organisms. So in Genesis, and God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. So there's water below and above the firmament. And it was so.

And God called the firmament heaven. And so I would say that if he called that heaven, that would be high in the sky. And so, and the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place and let dry land appear. And it was so. And so there's no mention of the waters above the heavens, above the sky being gathered. It's only waters underneath. To explain this a little bit more in the next chapter of Genesis, we get, The Lord had not caused it to rain upon the earth, but there went up amidst from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. So before the flood, there was no rain. But in the sky, above the sky, there was water. Maybe it looked like this. I don't know. I don't know what ungathered water looks like in the atmosphere, above the atmosphere or above the sky. I'm kind of just kind of duplicating clouds, which kind of seems like gathered water. But I don't know.

There is water above the earth, above the heavens. And so we know that there are some major differences that were the result of this. I think that the waters above the heavens did a lot to change the atmosphere. I think that the pre-flood atmosphere was more dense, and it probably had more protection, like UV protection from the sun, which does a lot to destroy things. But we know, you know, before the flood, Jared lives 962 years. Methuselah, an alleged portrait of him, 969. Lamech, 777. And then kind of very interestingly, Noah, 950, 350 of those years, he was alive after the flood. And so I think it stands to reason that there were some very long-lived creatures that, oh, we'll talk about that a little later. And so in the new atmosphere, post Noah's flood, or during the flood, so the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped. And the rain from heaven, was restrained. So, and in this new atmosphere, which it can now reign, God said, I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token and a covenant between me and the earth. The water shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

And so, post-flood, it can now reign, which means water is now gatherable above the firmament, or maybe it's gatherable in the firmament. I'm not sure. And this new atmosphere enables the appearance of rainbows, of refracted light in the atmosphere. Apparently that wasn't possible before. And as another consequence, man no longer lives as long. And so, a little bit of examples. So Abraham was born somewhere around 300 years after the flood, as it says in Genesis, 175 years. And so that was, you know, about 300 years, 350 years, something after the flood. Maybe he met Noah, maybe not. I don't know. There's some more research I could have done on this, but I just didn't get it done. And so it looks like there's a settling down of the atmosphere, which enabled people to live long, because Abraham lived 175 years.

So I think it's reasonable to say that there's probably other individuals around his time that also lived as long. But today, no one lives over 100. I mean, there's a few here and there, but boy, it's less than 1%. And the large creatures that are sometimes dug up by archaeologists, they just don't exist in this size today. And so we're going to tie this into the new atmosphere because there's been some experiments done. So from Wired.com, they found that dragonflies and beetles grew faster as well as bigger in high oxygen environments while cockroaches grew slower. and remain the same size. All the two bug species grew smaller than normal at low concentrations of oxygen. So imagine you had a high concentration of oxygen and you amped up the atmosphere, you know, the pressure. So you would have, say, if the atmosphere was twice as dense, you'd have twice as much air, which means you'd have even more oxygen.

And then maybe you blocked all the UV or whatever solar phenomena might be shortening our lives. And You get bigger creatures. In fact, some have even been found. How Titan boa, the 40-foot-long snake, was found. Lord of this jungle was a tiny, spectacular creature. Was truly a spectacular creature. A snake more than 40 feet long and weighing more than a ton. This giant serpent looks something like a modern-day boa constrictor. That's probably because it... was a boa constrictor. Because everything just lived longer. You know, here's a little dinosaur that they claim, 31 feet long. Macosaurus rex. Some skeletons they claim they have. A little example of it with a person there. But here's a modern day version. Dario. You know, it's like, it's basically the same thing. And it could be the atmosphere just made it grow a little bit differently. But form and function is the same. It looks pretty similar. It's just smaller. Kind of something else. It was more humorous to me than anything else. But, you know, maybe a T -Rex was really just a giant chicken. I don't know. I don't think the T-Rex actually existed.

Another example, Megalodon. I mean, it's just a giant great white shark. Because everything lived longer back then. And sharks just, they don't stop growing. And psalms, there go the ships. There is that Leviathan whom thou hast made to play therein. So there's several kind of references to giant sea creatures in the Bible. And there's lots of claims by sailors over the years about these creatures. And I think it's possible that they're just leftovers from Noah's flood. That maybe they survived the flood and they just lived so long already and they were just still around for a while. So, but, I don't know. Speculism. Speculation. So, the laws of procreation. Genetic information can only be duplicated or lost. New information is never created. This is what a mutation really is. It never creates anything. All organisms return to their natural state in the wild. If an organism goes too far from its natural state, it becomes sterile. Certain behaviors and genetic traits are amplified in different environments.

These traits are merely a change of behavior and or amplification of existing genetic code and one last little note just to stick the knife in there organisms only produce their own kind you can you can breed all the dogs in the world but you're never going to get anything but a dog and so well we have this next section which is probably somewhere around 20 minutes but we're kind of out of time so i don't know if um We want to continue anyway if anyone has to leave or we can say prayer and continue. Do you want to maybe share next week? I mean, I could, but it's only like 20 minutes. I don't think it's a whole presentation. I mean, share. We would do like a half and a half or something. Good. I mean, we went over for Samantha. You did. I just wasn't sure. Was it 20 minutes? Yeah, go ahead.

But so what we can do then is, yeah, if anybody has any questions or comments in there, let's take just a second to have anybody input and, you know, have something to say right now. And then we will go ahead and continue. We'll take two or three comments and then we'll go ahead. I love the presentation on the toothbrushing. That's a good one, Joyce. Yes, Mark, go ahead. You are still muted. I'm muted. You're muted, Mark. There you go. Yep, you're good. My church put on about 17 years ago a really good presentation on evolution and really shot it down, especially the macroevolution claims. But the presenter did say a point, I thought, and I don't know if this is disagreeing with what you're saying, Michael, or not, but he did say natural selection. uh does exist but i don't think that's what you're referring to as uh micro evolution but uh correct me if not uh because as you were talking about environment uh can change behavior but it also can change physically the uh the species i think a good example you correct me if you think i'm not correct here uh the mussox mussox is long long-haired uh for warmth there's many other animals in the arctic and antarctic that are suited for that environment and the question is did they change because of the environment and through national selection or was there an actual micro evolution process which you'll say no to that that occurred and the argument that they change is that They're not breeding with other buffalo and other ox because their species has changed enough.

So how do you account for those kinds of changes? Is it natural selection? Natural selection is different than microevolution? And is there a mutation involved here or not? Yeah, sure. I'd be happy to talk about that for a little bit, in my opinion. I started off with this presentation by offering some definitions of micro and macro evolution. One of the reasons why I did that is because the way that evolutionists talk, they never want to get nailed down on any definition. They're always changing it. And even if you go to one guy and he's like, I believe this. And they're like, well, this thing and this thing go say that that's ridiculous. And it's obviously this isn't fake. You know, it's a well-documented phenomena. Then I'd be like, oh, well, maybe this guy over here. He said this, so maybe that's what's going on. And so it's really, there's so much ambiguity in this system, and there's a reason for it, and that's because it's false. They interject radical amounts of ambiguity in order to create these strange positions that you find. And so they will say stuff like what you just mentioned, like these long-haired bison or whatever, some long-haired whatever, and like, oh, is that environment?

Now it's got long hair and stuff. And so my personal experience is about every 10 years, something radical comes up that they go, oh, here's the evolution. And then in a couple of years, five to 10 years later, it comes out that it was fake. Or it comes out that they're like, oh, we forgot about this particular thing that made that, or somebody was mistaken. Like, it's literally just every time, which is kind of actually the next section of this presentation. where I'm talking about lies, lies, and more lies. I'm focusing on mutations. So you're saying there was a mutation that created a muscle that more selected for that environment? It could be that that genetic information was already in that animal, and it went to a new place where all of the ones that didn't have longer hair died. And so the thing is, is microevolution is a conservative process. And so if you have all of these creatures that show up and they have what appears to be a new informational trait, that's not true. What happened was all of the other ones that had a different trait died or they can't survive in that area.

And so you'll have this. idea of a new creature, but it's really the same genetic information and it's just in a different environment. Well, I'm not sure I agree with you. Some mutations made a big argument about how mutations will die out. But aren't there cases where they're actually more selected for than the natural state? You know, the shark and the fly. But you mentioned the chihuahua. Well, the chihuahua, it wasn't bred to compete with the wolf. for survival in the wild. No, but the point of my example there was that there's so much genetic information lost, and it creates what looks like a new breed of creature, but it came from a wolf, right? It's just, you've lost so much new genetic information. So somebody goes, oh, in this new state, we've got all these longer creatures, it's a mutation, and they're going to say, new information is added because we now have these long-haired creatures that survive in the cold. And I go, well, no, there was already long-haired genetic information in that creature. It's just now it's in this place, and all the ones that can't keep warm died.

Can you say that the creature has changed, but not new genetic material like the mussox? It's changed, but it's not. Because I'm confused. It's just a loose word. It's the wrong word. You should say it hasn't changed. It has lost genetic information. Yet it's more natural, it's more suited for the environment than it was before. Well, if you have a bunch of mussocks and one had long hair and one had short hair, and for whatever reason the long hair is more insulating, then of course all the short hairs are going to die off in that region. So there was some mussocks there from the beginning, or the genetic makeup was there from the beginning. Okay, thank you.

And it could even be that maybe the mussock's hair... when it gets in a cold environment it you know it doesn't fall out it grows longer so it could even be you know because like dogs do that they shed in the summer like a lot of dogs do that so i don't think it's unreasonable that a mussox whatever this creature is would have long hair in a colder environment it just if it doesn't have that hot weather to trigger whatever change in its body to let the hair fall out then okay fine it's just it's really conservative versus creation of genetic information is really where everything is, because the key thing on evolution is we're creating new creatures, and we're doing that by creating genetic information. One more question is my question about natural selection. Do you believe natural selection exists? Or does that mean, Michael, evolution? Yeah, I believe natural selection exists. I think that's obvious. It's just it doesn't create new genetic information. And so the conspiracy was the natural selection process to create extra reasoning. Thank you. Let's go on to the next question. Carmen, you got your hand raised. Go ahead.

Don't forget to use the word adaptation, which is what you were talking about, growing the long hair. All the animals that live on the outside, for the wintertime, they grow inner hairs that are thicker and longer so they can keep warm. you wonder how do the cows and the horses out in the field how do they survive why their legs don't get frozen and that's because they have very few veins in their legs but also because they grow a whole set of hair underneath the visible hair that's on the outside so don't forget to use the word adaptation Well, the evolutionists would say that adaptation is probably from mutation. Okay. I'm just looking in the comments real quick before we... Any other questions before we have the final 20 minutes? No. Didn't he say he's not going to do it now? He's going to do it next week? No, he has to continue now.

I said let's have a little break, have people ask questions. Go ahead and finish, Micah. I may as well. There's only 10 of us. I must have bored everyone to death and they left. Well, time's up, so I just wanted to make sure people could read that, could listen. But we'll have it recorded and they can watch the rest of it. Are you going to go ahead and go on it now? Go ahead and go on, yep. Go ahead. I'll stay. I didn't know. I thought he said that. Never mind. I had a suggestion. I don't know. Whatever you want, Ben. I don't know. No, I don't. I mean, it doesn't matter to me. I guess we're already over. let's just go ahead and have a closing prayer we'll have it next week and you can have more i think it's important for folks to be able to hear this last section and um so let's go ahead and do that let's have a closing prayer we can have some other q a or we can do uh open forum and and whatnot so um let's go ahead um moses would you say the closing prayer for us who moses oh thank you

Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for this wonderful whether we've had this day and thank the for micah for giving this lesson that he was able to teach us and please help us in our arguments and helping to defend the cause of liberty and to bring light to others and please help us to go about our night in safety and i ask this in the name of Jesus Christ, amen. Amen. Okay, we can do…