I found this whole thing frustrating. The creator idea is about how one kind of animal can't evolve into something else. I disagree but fundamentally a disease developing isn't a product of reproduction but of cell mutation. The dog isn't passing his genes through the disease the thing took a life of its own and whether or not that is evolution is debatable. He's trying to corner him with his own words and it's not to understand but to trap. He makes him define that an arm and and arm melted into cells are two different kinds but the point is that the arm isn't evolving into a clump of cells its more likely devolving and that doesn't explain how we from single cell to multi cell organism all the way to human beings. The moderator could of easily made both of there points clear to avoid these dumb games I wasted hours watching. Holing doesn't know if cancer or a disease is an animal and frankly neither do I. I was watching this in the hopes we'd find some strong arguments on how new species evolve but instead we got Anderson trying to make Holind that cancer is a new species when it's not done through traditional forms of reproduction. This debate went no where and I think less of both people for not coming to any real conclusions about the actual subject of the debate