Excellent Evolution Debate (Theist vs Atheist) - Aaron Ra vs Saboor Ahmed (2017-08-12) #

0:00:00 all right welcome everybody thanks to
0:00:02 everybody for coming out tonight good to
0:00:05 see all here just a little bit try to
0:00:07 keep the opening announcements brief so
0:00:09 we get to the date as quickly as
0:00:10 possible but just a little bit about our
0:00:13 organization my name is Vic Hwang and I
0:00:15 am the president of humanistic Houston
0:00:17 and we are a 501 C 3 non-profit
0:00:19 organization dedicated to promoting
0:00:22 principles of secular humanism
0:00:23 throughout Houston and so we do all
0:00:27 kinds of events we do guest speakers
0:00:28 debates such as we have discussion
0:00:31 groups we do volunteer outings at
0:00:34 various charities and we do activism and
0:00:37 we also just do social events as well so
0:00:39 if you're not on Meetup please join the
0:00:43 HOH meetup group which is actually we're
0:00:48 actually the largest meetup group or the
0:00:51 largest chapter of the American Humanist
0:00:53 Association in the country and the
0:00:55 largest humanist meetup group in the
0:00:58 world and actually in fact we just
0:01:00 surpassed today we're actually now the
0:01:03 largest out of any humanist atheist or
0:01:06 skeptic meetup group in the world we're
0:01:08 actually now number one we just took
0:01:09 that over today so how many members oh
0:01:13 3106 left I month so so yeah please join
0:01:18 us up there and meet up and then you can
0:01:20 see a full calendar of events RSVP for
0:01:22 events and get reminders and whatnot for
0:01:25 all the different activities we have
0:01:27 going on which is typically about we
0:01:28 average about 20 points events per month
0:01:31 so on and yeah as far as today so very
0:01:38 proud to host this debate which has been
0:01:41 kind of a long time in the making it's a
0:01:43 fortuitous that they were able to meet
0:01:48 here in Houston to hold this debate
0:01:51 since neither neither of them lives in
0:01:53 Houston Arne is in Dallas
0:01:54 well mr. a Lada is in the UK so just so
0:01:59 happened we could get both of them here
0:02:01 today to hold this event which is going
0:02:05 to be a debate on evolution
0:02:08 specifically a
0:02:10 is Darwinian evolution the fact so mr.
0:02:16 Awad will actually be taking the
0:02:17 position the affirmative position that
0:02:20 it is not a fact and this will be going
0:02:22 first I just a reminder also that we
0:02:26 have questions a well knuckler we have
0:02:29 this card's index cards I should say in
0:02:31 each chair as well as pens if you don't
0:02:34 have one just raise your hand and
0:02:35 someone can bring you one those will be
0:02:37 for the questions we're going to do all
0:02:39 the questions in written form today so
0:02:42 feel free to submit your question at any
0:02:46 time just rearrange our hand and then
0:02:50 somebody will come and pick it up either
0:02:52 a Robert over here or Kathy over here
0:02:56 will come pick it up and then we will
0:02:58 make select questions probably want time
0:03:01 for all but if not we'll our moderator
0:03:06 will be introducing shortly we'll make
0:03:07 the selections on which questions to
0:03:11 select we do ask everybody of course to
0:03:14 remain quiet and civil throughout the
0:03:18 debate please be respectful of both of
0:03:20 the debaters in moderator and please no
0:03:26 outbursts oh and also again there are
0:03:30 snacks in the back feel free to help
0:03:31 yourselves because some cookies and
0:03:32 candy back there and restrooms and water
0:03:36 fountain are out in the hallway back
0:03:39 there so yeah one thing we wanted to
0:03:44 really try to do is make this debate as
0:03:47 neutral as possible and as fair as
0:03:49 possible so hence we're holding it at a
0:03:52 neutral venue and we went out of our way
0:03:53 to try to find things to interfaith
0:03:56 ministries of Greater Houston they we
0:04:01 were able to UM find our moderator for
0:04:04 this event who is a Christian so we did
0:04:07 want to make sure we did not have our
0:04:09 moderator was neither an atheist nor
0:04:12 Muslim to try to keep things things fair
0:04:15 so I'll go ahead and introduce our
0:04:18 moderator for this evening who is Sarah
0:04:21 stone and Sarah is the director of
0:04:24 singles and young adults at Memorial
0:04:26 Drive Presbyterian Church and a single
0:04:29 mother of two she completed the master's
0:04:31 in counseling psychology at Trinity
0:04:33 Evangelical Divinity School in Chicago
0:04:35 and practice family in couple of their
0:04:38 couples therapy before moving to Texas
0:04:40 as an energetic extrovert with a passion
0:04:43 for singles and young adults she gets
0:04:45 excited about building community and
0:04:47 event planning counseling and
0:04:49 discipleship in her free time you'll
0:04:51 find Sarah exploring Houston's newest
0:04:53 foodie spots playing the guitar or
0:04:55 dancing the night away
0:04:56 so I please welcome our moderator to the
0:04:59 stage Sarah stop well thank you so much
0:05:08 for having me oopss Hall make it a
0:05:10 little shorter thank you so much for
0:05:13 having me my first time doing anything
0:05:15 with the humanistic euston I'm excited
0:05:16 when he asked me for my bio I sent him
0:05:19 what's on our church website and it has
0:05:21 all the stuff at the end about what I do
0:05:22 in my free time and then I read their
0:05:24 BIOS and they were very scholarly and
0:05:26 serious so I think when you guys get up
0:05:29 you should tell us what you do when
0:05:30 you're not debating you're like I'm
0:05:31 sincere enjoy long walks on the beach or
0:05:34 you know make it your own because we're
0:05:36 going to be having 20 minutes dedicated
0:05:38 to each of our speakers and we'll get up
0:05:41 and begin and then we're going to give
0:05:44 them each 10 minutes for rebuttal and
0:05:46 then we're going to spend another 20
0:05:47 minutes letting them just kind of have a
0:05:48 one-on-one discussion and I think my job
0:05:51 in the middle is just to make sure to
0:05:52 the compasses or get crazy after that
0:05:56 we'll take a short break and all that
0:05:58 time hopefully you're writing questions
0:05:59 we'll take a look at those questions and
0:06:01 come back to do a QA time which I'm
0:06:03 really excited about I'm excited about
0:06:05 the whole thing I'm looking forward to
0:06:07 learning and but let me introduce our
0:06:09 first guest
0:06:10 sabore Ahmad he's the former head of
0:06:13 mission Abdullah and an instructor and
0:06:15 lecturer for the Islamic education and
0:06:17 research Academy which is an Islamic
0:06:19 missionary group he is a student of
0:06:21 Islamic thought and studies the
0:06:22 philosophy of biology
0:06:24 previously studied engineering at City
0:06:26 University of London sabores produced
0:06:29 several videos promoting Islam on the
0:06:31 YouTube channel of the London Dawa
0:06:32 movement so she has a head up as well as
0:06:35 videos critical of evolution at the
0:06:37 Darwinian delusions YouTube channel so
0:06:39 please welcome mr. moe he's just it yeah
0:06:52 yeah
0:07:04 casual from here okay welcome so I'm
0:07:10 going to begin as Muslims do in the name
0:07:12 of god the lord of mercy giver of mercy
0:07:15 now the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon
0:07:18 him said I think something we can all
0:07:19 pretty much agree with if we believe in
0:07:21 God day is that if you're not grateful
0:07:23 to people you're not grateful to God the
0:07:26 first thing I'd like to do is to thank
0:07:27 Aaron and the humanist Society for
0:07:30 facilitating this discussion and as a
0:07:33 gift as a gesture of my gratefulness I
0:07:35 bought fossilized a family of fossilized
0:07:38 baby trilobite from Wales as a gift to
0:07:40 you guys and because there's one thing
0:07:43 we can all agree about as christians
0:07:45 muslims jews humanists and nonhumans
0:07:48 amongst us if any it's not nature is for
0:07:52 the wonders i'm sure i'm sure we can all
0:07:54 agree with that so question tonight is
0:07:56 Darwinian evolution a fact now it's very
0:07:59 important before you get into a
0:08:00 discussion you define what you mean so
0:08:02 what I mean by a fact is something which
0:08:04 is certain something which is absolute
0:08:06 something that does not change now I
0:08:09 don't have any issue and no one should
0:08:11 have an issue calling Darwinian
0:08:13 evolution a working model a working
0:08:16 paradigm and a working theory but not a
0:08:19 fact now it's also important to find
0:08:22 what a theory is and this is what Aaron
0:08:23 says and I'm just going to play this
0:08:24 book here foundational falsehoods of
0:08:27 creationism he says theory is the
0:08:29 highest level of confidence science can
0:08:31 get a theories the field of study and
0:08:34 the body of knowledge enveloping a
0:08:36 collection of facts hypotheses and
0:08:38 natural laws now I generally think that
0:08:40 said that's okay to use as a definition
0:08:43 and the reason why I believe Darwinian
0:08:45 evolution is not a fact is because
0:08:47 scientific theories are not absolute
0:08:49 Darwinian evolution is a scientific
0:08:51 theory therefore Darwinian evolution is
0:08:53 not there for Darwinian evolution is not
0:08:56 absolute and the only people um can be
0:08:58 referring to today are mainstream
0:09:00 secular academics mainstream
0:09:02 philosophers of science and mainstream
0:09:03 evolutionary biologists I'm also going
0:09:06 to be making the case that
0:09:07 Darwinian evolution is not a fact but
0:09:10 also that it is Spex
0:09:12 it is based on assumptions and these
0:09:14 disputes about most fundamental ideas
0:09:17 and I think one of the reasons why some
0:09:19 people they think Darwinian evolution is
0:09:22 a fact is because of their
0:09:24 misunderstanding of what science can
0:09:27 achieve and I believe Aaron has that
0:09:29 misunderstanding he says in one of his
0:09:31 videos I understand that all of Sciences
0:09:33 revisable doesn't mean conclusions can
0:09:36 change just that they can be revised and
0:09:39 this is the polar opposite of what
0:09:41 evolutionary biologist Henrique II who
0:09:43 is also the senior editor of the most
0:09:45 prestigious journal in the world Nature
0:09:47 has to say about science he says
0:09:49 conclusions can change conclusions can
0:09:52 be wrong and science can only ever give
0:09:55 you provisional conclusions so how do we
0:09:57 decide between two polar views here what
0:10:00 we have to do is we have to look at the
0:10:01 philosophy of science
0:10:03 now the philosophy of science teaches us
0:10:04 that based upon a limited set of
0:10:06 observations scientists make a general
0:10:09 conclusion a general inference a general
0:10:12 theory now there's two particular issues
0:10:14 here
0:10:14 firstly you can always get novel
0:10:16 observations meaning observations which
0:10:18 challenge your previous theories
0:10:20 secondly the same observations can be
0:10:23 used to come up with multiple theories
0:10:26 so because of these two reasons in the
0:10:28 philosophy of science conclusions can
0:10:31 change and theories are not absolute so
0:10:35 Aaron I believe is out of line when it
0:10:37 comes to mainstream philosophers of
0:10:38 science and this is what it says in
0:10:40 philosophy of science a new introduction
0:10:41 by Oxford University to OCO scientific
0:10:44 proof is dangerous because the term
0:10:47 Foster's the idea of conclusions that
0:10:49 are graven in stone so Henry II is
0:10:52 correct and he is in line with
0:10:54 philosophers of science when he says
0:10:55 conclusions can be wrong conclusions can
0:10:58 change computers are always provisional
0:11:00 now some people come along and say wait
0:11:02 Darwinian evolution has been so
0:11:05 successful it's given us so many
0:11:06 predictions which have been confirmed
0:11:09 it's it's got to be true well just here
0:11:13 at the University of Texas we have the
0:11:14 philosopher of science
0:11:16 Larry Loudoun and he's put together a
0:11:18 philosophical paper where he puts
0:11:20 together 30 scientific theories which we
0:11:22 empirical
0:11:23 quite successful but we turned out to be
0:11:25 false and this is a well-known
0:11:27 understood thing in the philosophy of
0:11:29 science no matter how successful a
0:11:31 theory is it doesn't mean it won't
0:11:33 change it doesn't mean it is a fact in
0:11:36 the absolute sense but this what it says
0:11:38 in the philosophy of science a very
0:11:40 short instruction again by Oxford
0:11:41 University historically there are many
0:11:43 cases of theories that we now believe to
0:11:45 be false that will empirically by
0:11:47 successful also clearly no matter how
0:11:50 successful a theory is it doesn't mean
0:11:52 you can call it an absolute also some
0:11:55 you can say there is no alternative when
0:11:57 it comes to the history of evolution
0:11:58 other than the Darwinian paradigm well
0:12:02 let's just take that base value let's
0:12:04 say there is no alternatives when it
0:12:07 comes to the Darwinian picture of life
0:12:09 it still doesn't mean that it is
0:12:11 absolute this is what the philosopher of
0:12:13 science called Stanford explains there
0:12:15 are alternatives to our best theories
0:12:18 equally well confirmed by the evidence
0:12:20 even when we are even when we are unable
0:12:22 to conceive of them at the time and
0:12:25 somebody else can also make a claim
0:12:27 there is a complete consensus amongst
0:12:29 all evolutionary biologists that
0:12:31 Darwinian evolution is largely correct
0:12:35 now again I'm going to take this at face
0:12:36 value let's just assume every single
0:12:38 evolutionary biologist from the time of
0:12:40 Darwin till today believes Darwinian
0:12:42 evolution is correct it still doesn't
0:12:45 mean it is an absolute because we can
0:12:48 have paradigm shifts in science so a
0:12:51 complete consensus is still based on a
0:12:53 conclusion which is provisional this is
0:12:55 what it says in evidence and evolution
0:12:57 published by Cambridge University the
0:12:59 best that scientists can do at any time
0:13:01 this is the absolute best they can do is
0:13:04 to render comparative judgments between
0:13:07 theories but there is something Aaron is
0:13:09 correct upon he says a hundred years ago
0:13:12 we had the theories of evolution gravity
0:13:15 atomic theory cell theory and germ
0:13:16 theory of disease all these theories all
0:13:19 these fields have improved since then
0:13:21 but we still focused on the fact of
0:13:23 evolution gravity cells and germs so I
0:13:26 totally agree there there always will be
0:13:28 a theory of evolution and I'm going to
0:13:31 be explaining why I mean by evolution
0:13:33 we need to define those terms as well so
0:13:35 just to summarize observations are facts
0:13:37 theories are not facts although they're
0:13:39 based on observations as rm3 vyas
0:13:42 definition in this book which I agree
0:13:44 with because of two particular issues
0:13:46 multiple theories based upon the same
0:13:48 observations and secondly novel
0:13:51 observations that can challenge your
0:13:52 previous conclusions so philosophy of
0:13:55 science philosophy of science teaches
0:13:58 theories are not absolute Darwinian
0:14:00 evolution is a scientific theory
0:14:02 therefore Darwin eNOS evolution is not
0:14:06 absurd and it's also very important at
0:14:08 this moment to define the difference
0:14:10 between Darwinian evolution and
0:14:12 evolution evolution simply is an
0:14:15 observation of biological change from
0:14:18 that perspective it is an absolute fact
0:14:20 but it doesn't mean the Tree of Life or
0:14:23 natural selection being the cause behind
0:14:26 the Tree of Life is an absolute fact
0:14:28 Darwinian evolution is different
0:14:31 evolution in zunami a' which was written
0:14:34 by erasmus darwin Darwin's grandfather
0:14:36 he uses evolution in that particular
0:14:39 sense in fact in one sentence of that
0:14:41 book he uses evolution in a sense which
0:14:43 is non Darwinian
0:14:45 rapid alteration or evolution secondly
0:14:47 in zoological philosophy by John Bob Bob
0:14:50 steely moth who came up with his
0:14:52 LaMacchia devolution decades before
0:14:54 Darwin he also uses evolution in that
0:14:57 general sense of biological change so
0:15:00 from that perspective it is an
0:15:01 observation
0:15:02 now Lamarckian evolution existed some
0:15:05 decades before Darwin and there was two
0:15:07 particular parts to Lamarckian evolution
0:15:09 number one there was a history of
0:15:13 evolution which was represented by the
0:15:16 bush of life a number of multiple number
0:15:19 of origins parallel lines of evolution
0:15:22 organisms going from simple to more
0:15:25 complex it was like written within them
0:15:27 to get more and more complex
0:15:29 secondly the mechanism by which that
0:15:31 happened was the inheritance of acquired
0:15:33 characteristics Darwinism likewise
0:15:36 Darwinian evolution Darwin came along
0:15:38 about 50 years after the mark and he put
0:15:41 together his own theory of evolution
0:15:43 which also had two parts
0:15:44 one was a history of evolution
0:15:47 represented by the Tree of Life and
0:15:48 secondly was natural selection working
0:15:51 on variations later on they call their
0:15:53 mutations but the same thing this or the
0:15:55 philosophy of science Jerry Fodor
0:15:56 explains Darwin's theory of evolution
0:15:58 has two parts one is it's familiar
0:16:01 historical account of our phylogeny the
0:16:03 universal common ancestry tree of life
0:16:05 the other is the theory of natural
0:16:07 selection so I hope that is clear
0:16:10 evolution Darwinian evolution and
0:16:12 Lamarckian evolution to the view if you
0:16:15 actually complete them it can create
0:16:17 multiple levels of confusion now in one
0:16:20 of his comments Aaron said why are we
0:16:23 even bothering with the superfluous
0:16:24 labels of Darwinian natural and sexual
0:16:27 selection versus neo-darwinian selection
0:16:30 plus genetics just call it evolution
0:16:32 that's what it is I'm going to make the
0:16:35 case that we shouldn't call Darwinian
0:16:38 evolution or Neil Darwinian evolution
0:16:40 just called evolution because it creates
0:16:42 confusion for example we know that
0:16:44 bacteria mutates this is a clear-cut
0:16:47 evolution observation we have observed
0:16:50 this in the lab now because that is true
0:16:52 does that mean the Tree of Life is true
0:16:54 does that mean
0:16:55 natural selection virtual variations is
0:16:57 the cruelty I know that and if we were
0:16:59 to equate evolution with Lamarckian
0:17:01 evolution does that mean the bush of
0:17:03 life is true does that mean in the
0:17:04 inheritance of acquired characteristics
0:17:06 is true of course not so we need to use
0:17:08 our terms carefully so when you are
0:17:10 referring to the history of life just
0:17:13 call it the tree of life or universal
0:17:15 common ancestry when you're referring to
0:17:17 the mechanism of evolution just call it
0:17:19 natural selection evolution simply means
0:17:22 biological change over time and it is a
0:17:26 observation and it is absolutely true
0:17:30 okay I'm also going to be making the
0:17:32 case that dominant evolution is
0:17:34 speculative based on assumption then
0:17:37 there's disputes of our most fundamental
0:17:38 ideas now why is Darwinian evolution
0:17:41 speculative for two reasons number one
0:17:44 is reconstructing the evolutionary
0:17:47 history of life on Earth is very
0:17:49 difficult number one we're speaking
0:17:52 about something that has taken place
0:17:54 over an incredibly long period of
0:17:56 time something like 4 million years now
0:18:00 it's very difficult to try and
0:18:02 reconstruct something that happened that
0:18:05 long ago and in the Journal of
0:18:07 theoretical biology there's a paper
0:18:09 called testing the hypothesis of common
0:18:12 ancestry there's actually a section
0:18:15 dedicated to why it's difficult to work
0:18:18 out what happened in the past and that's
0:18:20 actually what they concluded secondly
0:18:22 we're talking about my incredibly large
0:18:25 data set according to a National Science
0:18:27 Foundation 99.999% of species are
0:18:32 unobserved not organisms species are
0:18:35 unobserved so whatever you try and make
0:18:38 up it is bound to be speculative and
0:18:42 this was a study that was just published
0:18:43 in May this year so whether you try and
0:18:46 come up with the universal common
0:18:47 ancestry tree of life or you try and
0:18:49 come up with like a Lamarckian multiple
0:18:51 origins bush of life or you try and come
0:18:54 up with what some evolutionary
0:18:56 biologists are referring to as the web
0:18:57 of life or the name of life or you
0:19:00 believe in gradual evolution which is
0:19:02 you know neo-darwinism or you believe in
0:19:05 rapid occasional processes or you
0:19:08 believe in progression or non
0:19:10 progression either way it's an open
0:19:12 season on the historical record of life
0:19:15 on Earth simply because so much of the
0:19:17 data is missing and also because this
0:19:19 meeting about something that happened a
0:19:21 long time ago now in science it gives
0:19:23 the analogy or working out the history
0:19:24 of evolution in the following way it is
0:19:26 like trying to work out and I want to
0:19:28 use an example where I should bring it
0:19:30 up ok it's like trying to work out the
0:19:33 plot of Leo Tolstoy's war and bees
0:19:35 whether this is not yet by the way with
0:19:38 13 randomly selected pages right now
0:19:41 imagine if you had that book how many
0:19:43 different plots theories ideas could you
0:19:45 put together if you only had 13 randomly
0:19:47 selected pages and all the rest of the
0:19:48 pages are missing multiple so why is it
0:19:50 that we sometimes fooled by people who
0:19:53 should know better that the Darwinian
0:19:54 pigeon only inference possible and in
0:19:59 his book foundational forces of creation
0:20:01 I am really promoting a book it is a
0:20:04 fact
0:20:05 this iron says it is
0:20:06 but that everything on earth has
0:20:08 definitive relatives either living
0:20:10 nearby or evident in the fossil record
0:20:12 and in a video he goes further it would
0:20:15 be perverse to say taxonomical
0:20:17 classification are a fantastically
0:20:20 improbable accident of coincidence that
0:20:22 would be a statistical impossibility
0:20:24 which reaches into the wrong or reality
0:20:26 denial it is an absolute fact
0:20:30 now he's clearly out of line with
0:20:33 mainstream evolutionary biology just to
0:20:38 give you an example of where he has
0:20:40 continued to long term motivators
0:20:42 there's a people called a formal test of
0:20:45 the theory of universal common ancestry
0:20:47 published in Nature and this is what it
0:20:49 says in the abstract and I want you to
0:20:51 put the words absolute fact in reality
0:20:53 denying denial here which is what Aaron
0:20:55 said and put the words that they are
0:20:58 saying on the other side
0:20:59 although Universal common ancestry is
0:21:01 widely assumed power there
0:21:03 it has rarely been subjected to formal
0:21:06 quantitative testing and this has led to
0:21:08 critical commentary emphasizing the
0:21:11 intrinsic technical difficulties in
0:21:14 empirically involved evaluating a theory
0:21:16 of such a broad scope and clearly no
0:21:20 words like absolute fact no words like
0:21:22 reality denial secondly though any
0:21:24 evolution is based upon assumptions and
0:21:26 some of these assumptions are being
0:21:28 challenged by evolutionary biologists
0:21:30 for example genes transpire are
0:21:32 transmitted vertically we've discovered
0:21:35 the process of horizontal gene transfer
0:21:37 recently the idea of gradualism some
0:21:40 evolutionary biologists believed in
0:21:42 rapid occasional processes the tree of
0:21:44 life some biologists are speaking about
0:21:46 the web of life you'll find this all
0:21:48 over the place now inheritance of
0:21:50 acquired characteristics are impossible
0:21:52 just read The Selfish Gene you know
0:21:55 1980s edition it clearly mentions it is
0:21:59 impossible to inherit acquired
0:22:00 characteristics this is classical
0:22:02 neo-darwinism and now we have actually
0:22:05 observed this and this is published in
0:22:06 mainstream journals mutations are random
0:22:08 other biologists disagree they believe
0:22:11 mutations are directed I'm going to
0:22:13 explain what that means in a minute
0:22:15 according to Oxford University
0:22:17 biologists a national
0:22:19 all of the central assumptions of
0:22:21 neo-darwinism have been disproven now by
0:22:24 the way just a small caveat I don't
0:22:27 agree with anything that you guys are
0:22:29 saying I'm not taking a position I'm not
0:22:31 saying what Dennis Noble said is right
0:22:32 and I'm not saying the evolutionary
0:22:34 biologists that have the different views
0:22:35 are right now I subscribe to those
0:22:37 leaves I'm just showing you a difference
0:22:38 of Anna pinnacle of opinion lastly there
0:22:41 are disputes
0:22:42 now if the Linnaean evolution was
0:22:45 absolutely true
0:22:47 these books would not exist now I'm just
0:22:49 going to explain each one of them right
0:22:51 so evolution my natural genetic
0:22:53 engineering is a total alternative to
0:22:55 the Darwinian mechanism it proposes
0:22:57 external factors activate genome change
0:23:00 operators in English that basically
0:23:02 means mutations are not random they are
0:23:04 directed and in evolution I view from
0:23:07 the 21st century it mentions a whole new
0:23:10 alternative to meal Domon ISM and just
0:23:14 one of the one of the people who
0:23:15 actually support just to give you an
0:23:17 idea of the source scientists who are
0:23:19 behind this is Carlos the guy who
0:23:21 discovered the third domain of life
0:23:23 right that evolutionary biologists are
0:23:25 the important are looking into
0:23:27 alternatives secondly neo launched in
0:23:30 evolution our proponents argue
0:23:32 inheritance of acquired characteristics
0:23:33 drive rapid evolutionary change in
0:23:36 English that basically means you know
0:23:38 that giraffes with his long necks you
0:23:39 know develop characteristics can be
0:23:42 inherited and changes are fast right and
0:23:45 they again challenge the idea of
0:23:46 gradualism now this is a book written by
0:23:49 Roger Blanca Ellucian gorgeous
0:23:51 transformations Lamarckism and it's a
0:23:53 complete alternative on me on the
0:23:57 neo-darwinian mechanism this is
0:23:59 published by MIT University so clearly
0:24:01 you know it Aran's correct then reality
0:24:04 denial an absolute fact these guys don't
0:24:06 seem to be agreeing with him there now
0:24:08 the last one and I think there's quite
0:24:09 an interesting one this is actually
0:24:10 referred to as the Forgotten synthesis
0:24:13 Mendelian mutation ISM right so this
0:24:16 challenges the idea of gradualism
0:24:18 it argues evolution takes bless a place
0:24:20 in rapid steps by large mutations right
0:24:24 now this is a book published by
0:24:26 Masatoshi night I always gets me
0:24:28 all saturated from here mutation driven
0:24:31 evolution published by Oxford University
0:24:32 gives a complete alternative to the
0:24:35 Darwinian mechanism now they're not
0:24:37 challenging the Darwinian history of
0:24:38 life they charge they're challenging the
0:24:39 Darwinian mechanism although some are
0:24:43 challenging it by proposing the web of
0:24:45 life okay now if Darwinian evolution was
0:24:48 a was an absolute fact
0:24:50 then these books would not exist the
0:24:53 journals that they refer to that they've
0:24:55 published in the peer-reviewed journals
0:24:57 would not exist and the universities
0:24:59 that published them like MIT and Oxford
0:25:01 would not exist but they clearly do so
0:25:04 if it was an absolute fact scientists
0:25:07 wouldn't be proposing alternative and I
0:25:09 just want to highlight a project for an
0:25:11 affiant it's called the third way of
0:25:14 evolution and this project has
0:25:16 scientists from China and you know only
0:25:18 evolutionary secular mainstream
0:25:19 biologists right it has scientists from
0:25:23 China Europe America Oxford Cambridge
0:25:27 MIT Princeton Harvard and all of these
0:25:30 secular biologists they do not believe
0:25:33 in the Darwinian mechanism and they are
0:25:36 proposing alternatives and they believe
0:25:38 is for an above now again I do not
0:25:40 endorse any of their views all I am
0:25:42 doing is I'm sharing their extreme their
0:25:44 project to show that there is difference
0:25:47 of opinion and the reason why it's
0:25:50 called a third way is because they don't
0:25:51 believe in intelligent design they don't
0:25:53 believe in creation science and they
0:25:55 don't believe in neo-darwinism so
0:25:56 they're trying to find a third way so
0:25:59 just to summarize scientific theories
0:26:02 are not absolute Darwinian evolution is
0:26:05 a scientific theory therefore Darwinian
0:26:09 evolution is not absolute and I defined
0:26:13 fact in the beginning because there's
0:26:14 multiple meanings of fact absolute
0:26:17 doesn't have multiple meanings absolute
0:26:19 means it cannot be open to other
0:26:21 interpretations cannot be undermined by
0:26:23 new evidence is it it is an objective
0:26:26 power reality I just wanted to highlight
0:26:28 that friend now even Richard Dawkins in
0:26:31 his book a devil's chaplain
0:26:32 he agrees that a Darwinian met
0:26:36 is another history of life he believes
0:26:38 that that can actually change he says we
0:26:41 must acknowledge the possibility that
0:26:43 new facts may come to light
0:26:45 we shall force our successors with train
0:26:47 for a century to abandon Darwinism or
0:26:49 modify beyond recognition now I want you
0:26:54 guys to make sure you understand this it
0:26:56 is a very beauty of science that
0:26:58 conclusions can change that's the beauty
0:27:00 of science it's not actually a weakness
0:27:02 because if it is a change we'd still be
0:27:04 living in a clockwork mechanical
0:27:05 universe so the very fact that
0:27:07 conclusions can change is a good thing
0:27:09 Darwinian evolution is the current
0:27:12 working model is the current working
0:27:14 paradigm is the current working theory
0:27:17 and I have no problem with accepting it
0:27:20 as a working hypothesis working theory
0:27:23 working paradigm working model but it is
0:27:26 not an absolute fact for the same reason
0:27:29 that no other scientific theory can be
0:27:32 an absolute fact so just to summarize it
0:27:36 is speculative it is based on
0:27:38 assumptions and they are disputes about
0:27:40 small fundamental ideas I thank you very
0:27:42 much for listening
0:27:49 time's up perfectly my goodness I was a
0:27:53 little afraid of what alarm my children
0:27:55 who recently I found but we didn't get
0:27:57 Disney song or something but you forgot
0:28:00 to tell us what you do in the free time
0:28:01 when you're not debating I don't let it
0:28:03 fly it for now but later when we you
0:28:05 know be thinking I'm going all up next
0:28:09 the competitor are in Ross he's an
0:28:11 atheist activist a video blogger a
0:28:14 former Texas state director of the
0:28:16 American atheist former host of the dog
0:28:18 resonate host of the raw men that makes
0:28:21 me hungry podcast Thank You current
0:28:24 president of a Viet the lions of America
0:28:26 and blogger for reason advocates on the
0:28:29 piteous network he's also heading the
0:28:31 phylogeny Explorer project and effort to
0:28:34 render the entire evolutionary tree of
0:28:36 life as a navigable online encyclopedia
0:28:38 Erin Roberts became known for his
0:28:40 YouTube video series and foundational
0:28:42 falsehoods of creationism which is
0:28:44 attracted over 20 million views and 142
0:28:47 thousand subscribers to his YouTube
0:28:49 channel and resulted in his recently
0:28:51 published books of the same name which
0:28:53 we've heard so much about thank you
0:29:02 thank you very much I don't do anything
0:29:04 in my off time I just work I'm
0:29:07 determined to be like the
0:29:08 hardest-working activist in any ism and
0:29:11 I'm well on my way so have a slight
0:29:14 PowerPoint here and I apologize that so
0:29:17 much of this presentation is going to
0:29:20 have to be on semantics it seems because
0:29:23 is my opinion that my opponent is at a
0:29:25 disadvantage in that he doesn't really
0:29:27 understand the words that he's using his
0:29:30 argument depends on erroneously
0:29:32 redefining terms and also quote mining
0:29:35 academics out of context not so much in
0:29:38 what they're taking the sentence out of
0:29:39 a paragraph but in not understanding of
0:29:42 meaning surrounding what they're saying
0:29:43 so as this work tonight okay good I
0:29:46 never trusting SIG's right the term
0:29:48 Darwinism means something different here
0:29:51 in the US than it means of the UK
0:29:53 American scientists wouldn't use the
0:29:55 word Darwinism at all American
0:29:58 historians might but only if they're
0:30:00 talking about Darwin's own postulations
0:30:02 natural selection sexual selection our
0:30:05 the Darwinian mechanisms because it was
0:30:07 Darwin who first proposed but if you
0:30:09 look at these last three lines you'll
0:30:11 see that among senior British scientists
0:30:14 the word Darwinism is just a synonym for
0:30:17 biological evolution meaning that the
0:30:19 two words mean exactly the same thing in
0:30:22 the UK as anyone can see if you just
0:30:24 look it up professor Richard Dawkins
0:30:26 gives an example of where British and
0:30:28 American scientists agree that Darwinian
0:30:31 evolution is contrasted against
0:30:32 Lamarckian evolution based on the
0:30:35 mechanisms that Darwin first proposed in
0:30:36 which sense in confirmed and sabor has
0:30:40 already conceded that these are a matter
0:30:42 of actual fact in the American
0:30:44 understanding of that word Lamarck's
0:30:46 theory couldn't pass the test but Darwin
0:30:48 did and was replaced by Darwinian theory
0:30:52 which was then synthesized with genetic
0:30:54 theory to become the modern synthesis
0:30:57 the Mondello Darwinian synthesis is also
0:30:59 called neo-darwinism and is
0:31:01 distinguished from Darwinism being
0:31:03 limited to Darwin's own 19th century
0:31:05 understanding so when he says the word
0:31:07 Darwinism to me I'm hearing what they
0:31:09 knew in the 1800s and nothing more than
0:31:13 so sabor does not want to accept that
0:31:16 additional mechanisms have been
0:31:18 discovered and integrated he talks about
0:31:20 there being completely new theories that
0:31:21 are supposed to challenge the original
0:31:23 theory now these are new theories are
0:31:25 being integrated with the original
0:31:27 mechanisms they started with genetic
0:31:29 drift and moved into endosymbiosis and
0:31:31 epigenetics and a number of others these
0:31:34 and other discoveries in cell theory
0:31:35 have contributed to an even more robust
0:31:37 version of evolution which was recently
0:31:39 announced a very recently announced yet
0:31:42 by the Royal Society in London in which
0:31:44 they had an argument very much like why
0:31:46 he's talking about where you had
0:31:47 scientists fighting with each other over
0:31:49 whether they're going to accept
0:31:51 neo-darwinism they were hating on
0:31:53 neo-darwinism they want to come up with
0:31:54 this whole new theory and other
0:31:56 scientists are arguing but there's no
0:31:57 substance to what you're talking about
0:31:58 is not worth a whole bin theory it's
0:32:01 just an extension and I haven't read up
0:32:03 on much of it as I could I tried to
0:32:05 advise some of these people for a
0:32:06 podcast but I haven't been able to get
0:32:08 anybody who will be willing to talk to
0:32:10 me about it they closed the hearing for
0:32:11 the public but I did read some of the
0:32:14 things that they're they're proposing
0:32:15 not worth a whole nother theory but okay
0:32:18 they want to integrate some other things
0:32:19 which is fine and they call as the
0:32:22 extended evolution earing synthesis
0:32:25 being an extension of neo-darwinism
0:32:27 which was itself an extension of
0:32:29 Darwinism and noted that when Darwin is
0:32:32 a one neo-darwinism is criticized
0:32:34 Darwinism remains intact there are some
0:32:37 people at this conference who are
0:32:39 proposing or from proponents of
0:32:41 intelligent design who said that
0:32:44 Darwinism they thought Darwinism was
0:32:46 more accurate back in Darwin's day now
0:32:49 their opinion is irrelevant I just show
0:32:51 it to you to illustrate that they're
0:32:53 making a distinction between Darwinism
0:32:54 and neo-darwinism and thence again we
0:32:57 don't use those words here and so anyone
0:33:00 who has taught Darwinism in American
0:33:02 high school is probably too old still be
0:33:04 alive what you learn in high school was
0:33:08 not Darwinism but Neil Darwinism in
0:33:11 working and unless your professor was a
0:33:13 silver haired Englishman in which case
0:33:16 all coastal marking and concepts and
0:33:18 mechanisms might have been called
0:33:20 Darwinian and
0:33:25 where was I oh yeah
0:33:28 okay anger kids what we taught the
0:33:31 evolute lead would be extended
0:33:34 evolutionary synthesis I think is okay
0:33:37 so sabor says that evolution it was
0:33:40 breaking went into detail in a video and
0:33:43 this is what I'm responding to you said
0:33:45 that evolution is something that is not
0:33:46 controversial because it is limited to
0:33:48 observable changes within a single
0:33:50 species that could be seen in one
0:33:51 lifetime but he says that Darwinism is a
0:33:55 history of biodiversity from a Universal
0:33:57 common ancestor that takes millions or
0:33:59 billions of years so when he's done well
0:34:01 he doesn't seem to realize it yet as he
0:34:04 has complained evolution with
0:34:06 microevolution and Darwinism with macro
0:34:10 evolution they didn't call it Mac
0:34:12 revolution which would have been easy to
0:34:14 disprove just pull up a documented
0:34:16 speciation but since he's using the
0:34:18 wrong definitions for the wrong terms it
0:34:20 gets big and hard to identify exactly
0:34:22 what he thinks he's talking about
0:34:24 once we correct those terms those of you
0:34:28 have read my book will recognize this as
0:34:30 the eleventh foundational falsehood of
0:34:31 creationism where creationists will
0:34:33 accept small-scale evolution because
0:34:34 it's too obvious to tonight but they'll
0:34:37 say that large-scale evolution is
0:34:39 unobservable and therefore merely a
0:34:41 belief and cigars use of deceptive
0:34:45 deceptive leave a big Lluis language is
0:34:48 equivocation which amusingly is what he
0:34:50 accused me of at this very point but
0:34:54 he's the one who's using the words
0:34:55 incorrectly okay
0:34:58 these words never Darwinism never meant
0:35:03 what you thought it doesn't if you're
0:35:05 talking to scientist of yesteryear why
0:35:08 he got these two confused so if you're
0:35:09 talking science of yesteryear they would
0:35:11 have said that Darwinism in third all by
0:35:12 Darwin doesn't they would have talked
0:35:13 about the first one not the same and if
0:35:15 you talk about reductive modern science
0:35:17 when they say evolution they mean both
0:35:19 of these right with natural selection
0:35:21 and all of the other identified
0:35:24 mechanisms combined now when the
0:35:28 National Academy of Science made their
0:35:31 official announcement that evolution was
0:35:33 both a theory
0:35:34 and of fact they specified that they
0:35:37 meant both present and past and they
0:35:40 were talking about among other things
0:35:41 what goes on now and also transitional
0:35:44 species that existed hundreds of
0:35:45 millions of years ago so they're talking
0:35:47 about both micro and macro and this is
0:35:51 what subordinate when when he misused
0:35:54 the word Darwinian or Darwinism so more
0:35:58 said that science should be revisable
0:35:59 which it is and what he calls Darwinian
0:36:02 evolution is no exception in it too can
0:36:05 be and has been revised altered
0:36:07 corrected improved and updated but he
0:36:10 thinks that provides well means it can
0:36:12 be completely overturned refuted it
0:36:13 seems to be the words that he's looking
0:36:15 for and that's just not the case and if
0:36:18 reading the definition isn't enough to
0:36:20 prove that which is look at the article
0:36:21 here we see that the formal scientific
0:36:25 definition of theory refers to a
0:36:26 comprehensive explanation of some aspect
0:36:28 of nature that is supported by a vast
0:36:31 body of evidence and that many
0:36:33 scientific theories are so well
0:36:35 established that no new evidence is
0:36:38 likely to alter them substantially now
0:36:40 he mentioned some that have been refuted
0:36:43 we're talking about well establishments
0:36:45 now we're not talking about phlogiston
0:36:47 we're not talking about vitalism there
0:36:49 are a whole bunch of theories that have
0:36:51 failed over time we talked about the
0:36:53 ones that have withstood more than a
0:36:55 century of hard testing by the smartest
0:36:57 people in the planet now
0:37:00 these if I may quote they say no new
0:37:04 evidence will demonstrate that the earth
0:37:06 does not orbit around the Sun that's
0:37:09 heliocentric theory or that living
0:37:11 things are not made of cells cell theory
0:37:13 or that matter is not composed with
0:37:15 atoms which is atomic theory or that the
0:37:17 surface of the earth is not divided into
0:37:19 solid plates that have moved over
0:37:20 geologic time scales which is of course
0:37:22 the theory of plate tectonics like these
0:37:25 and other foundational scientific
0:37:27 theories the theory of evolution is
0:37:29 supported by soul
0:37:37 I'm the only one that doesn't turn off
0:37:39 my phones I think people know better
0:37:41 alright alright so where was I reading
0:37:46 this uh assumptions honestly that's
0:37:51 right like these other foundational
0:37:54 scientific theories the theory of
0:37:56 evolution is supported by so many
0:37:57 observations and confirming experiments
0:38:00 rather than speculative assumptions that
0:38:03 scientists are confident that the basic
0:38:05 components of the theory will not be
0:38:07 overturned by new evidence end quote and
0:38:11 you see if I deliver that's nice one and
0:38:14 this is where we have to explain what a
0:38:15 fact is your definitions for
0:38:18 merriam-webster one from Wikipedia and
0:38:19 one from the National Center for Science
0:38:21 education now support is not like the
0:38:24 caveat that the NCSA tacked on the end
0:38:26 of there's that's fine I don't like it
0:38:28 either but it just proves his point that
0:38:31 facts are supposed to be absolute but
0:38:34 they're not but if you remove the word
0:38:37 episode of them I'd remove the word
0:38:40 absolutely then he and I may agree that
0:38:43 the truth is what the facts are because
0:38:45 the truth is dr. Dennis identify defined
0:38:49 as what can be shown to be true working
0:38:51 courting with reality and in fact as a
0:38:53 point of data which is either not in
0:38:54 dispute or is indisputable ended it is
0:38:56 objectively verifiable whichever way we
0:38:59 like it whatever wording you prefer a
0:39:01 fact is information that can be
0:39:03 confirmed correct now referring to the
0:39:08 National Academy of Science again we
0:39:10 read that in science a fact typically
0:39:12 refers to an observation measurement or
0:39:14 other form of evidence that can be
0:39:16 expected to occur the same way under
0:39:17 similar circumstances however and this
0:39:20 is important because along in the video
0:39:22 they was talking about before he
0:39:24 distinguished the mechanisms of
0:39:26 evolution from the explanation of
0:39:29 evolution only is the explanation that
0:39:31 he called Darwinism right and he said
0:39:34 that this is not a fact because it has
0:39:35 to be absolute which of course it
0:39:36 doesn't have to be absolute and he says
0:39:38 you can have view it as a mechanism
0:39:40 effect but the theory cannot be effect
0:39:42 but your the turn fact also refers to a
0:39:46 scientific explanation that has been
0:39:50 tested and confirmed so many times that
0:39:55 there's no longer a compelling reason to
0:39:57 keep testing or looking for additional
0:39:59 examples meaning that it has been
0:40:00 sufficiently proven in the colloquial
0:40:03 sense and it it's important to
0:40:06 understand what we're talking about you
0:40:08 know when you use the word proof you
0:40:09 have to specify what you mean because we
0:40:11 all know that science doesn't prove
0:40:13 anything except in mathematics right so
0:40:16 if we use the word proof we have to
0:40:17 understand we're using a legal term
0:40:18 we're at an overwhelming preponderance
0:40:20 of evidence to establish a case or so
0:40:22 forth so in that respect the past and
0:40:28 continuing occurrence referring to both
0:40:29 micro and macro here of evolution is a
0:40:33 scientific fact because the evidence
0:40:36 supporting it is so strong so I us no
0:40:39 longer question whether biological
0:40:41 evolution has occurred and is continuing
0:40:43 to occur so not only study how it
0:40:45 happened and not so much giving it out
0:40:48 because that question has already been
0:40:50 answered and I could rest my case right
0:40:53 here but I wouldn't just use an argument
0:40:56 or Authority and I did write a book on
0:40:58 this I'm going to have some idea about
0:41:00 how to explain this is by citing
0:41:01 explaining data so like Keith's
0:41:04 mentioned before it took part of a quote
0:41:06 it is a fact that evolution happens that
0:41:09 biodiversity and complexity to increase
0:41:11 and that both occur naturally only by
0:41:13 evolutionary means it is the fact that
0:41:16 alleles vary with increasing distinction
0:41:17 and reproductive populations and that
0:41:20 these are accelerated in genetically
0:41:21 isolated groups it is a fact that
0:41:24 natural selection sexual selection and
0:41:26 genetic drift have all been proven to
0:41:28 have predictable effect in guiding this
0:41:29 variance if you accept micro evolution
0:41:32 you have no excuse to reject macro
0:41:35 evolution visits continuation of the
0:41:37 same process if you can walk 20 feet
0:41:40 they give it more time and provisions
0:41:42 you can walk 20 miles it is a fact that
0:41:46 significant beneficial mutations do
0:41:47 occur and are inherited by the Senate
0:41:49 groups and the multiple independent sets
0:41:51 of biological markers
0:41:52 to trace these lineages backwards over
0:41:54 many generations and this is one of the
0:41:57 many facts establishing the back of
0:41:58 human evolutionary ancestry it is a fact
0:42:01 that the collected genome of all animals
0:42:03 has been traced to its most basal form
0:42:05 through reverse sequencing and that
0:42:07 those forms are indicated by comparative
0:42:09 morphology and physiology and
0:42:10 embryological development in addition to
0:42:13 chronologically correct placement in the
0:42:15 g11 call in successive stages is also
0:42:18 fact that every animal on earth as he
0:42:20 mentioned before has definite relatives
0:42:22 either living nearby or in fossil record
0:42:24 he's away there are ways of establishing
0:42:26 this hierarchy of arrangement and it was
0:42:28 done 300 years ago so it doesn't take a
0:42:31 whole lot of technology to figure this
0:42:32 out there's simple aim of Sesame Street
0:42:34 one of these things is not like the
0:42:36 other that's all of the unique really to
0:42:38 establish this kind of a hierarchy and
0:42:41 importantly it is also a fact that both
0:42:44 microevolution and macro-evolution have
0:42:46 been observed and documented dozens of
0:42:49 times both in the lab and in naturally
0:42:51 controlled conditions in the field and
0:42:53 that all of these have listed critical
0:42:55 analysis in peer review and I have
0:42:57 citations for some of these in my book
0:42:59 we don't know everything but we know a
0:43:01 lot about this and what we know we
0:43:05 actually know and can show that we got
0:43:07 it right which brings me to an update I
0:43:10 need to bring up saguaros a YouTube
0:43:12 channel called Darwinian delusions and
0:43:17 the idea that he calls us Darwinists
0:43:20 delusional may seem like an empty insult
0:43:24 but it is also a logical fallacy of
0:43:27 psychological projection he is
0:43:28 projecting his own faults onto those who
0:43:30 will not share them the psychiatric
0:43:33 definition of a delusion is a persistent
0:43:35 false belief that is maintained despite
0:43:36 indisputable evidence to the contrary to
0:43:38 falsely claim something when there is
0:43:40 evidence otherwise and it is a delusion
0:43:43 because the beliefs remain fixed even
0:43:47 when the facts are against them there is
0:43:49 no actual fact that contradicts
0:43:53 evolution but if there was we would
0:43:55 simply have to consider it and change
0:43:57 our minds were adjust our perception
0:43:59 accordingly because we just want to
0:44:01 understand the way things really are and
0:44:03 improve on
0:44:04 understanding we don't have a commitment
0:44:06 to preserve or defend the belief whether
0:44:08 it's true or not which Civil War does
0:44:11 and this is why you will continue to
0:44:14 believe what he believes even when all
0:44:17 the facts are against it because
0:44:19 creationist organisations post
0:44:21 statements of faith as if this were
0:44:24 something to be proud of wherein they
0:44:26 admit that they will never acknowledge
0:44:29 any evidence against them these are
0:44:33 confessions that they have already
0:44:35 rejected into notice these are all from
0:44:37 leading creationist organizations these
0:44:40 are confessions that they have already
0:44:41 rejected all the evidence there could
0:44:43 ever be such that no matter how long
0:44:46 they are no amount of proof will ever
0:44:50 change their lives their beliefs are
0:44:53 assumed without reason and defended
0:44:54 against all reason not one scientific
0:44:58 organization or institution would agree
0:45:00 to anything so intellectually dishonest
0:45:03 as this because it's not the Darwinists
0:45:06 who are delusional yet this is a typical
0:45:12 even common admission among creationists
0:45:16 because creationism literally is a
0:45:20 delusion by definition because it is a
0:45:23 persistent false belief that will not
0:45:24 change despite evidence to the contrary
0:45:26 as you can see here they even admit that
0:45:29 and sabores admitted it too in a video
0:45:35 that I responded to he said that he
0:45:38 thinks there's nothing wrong with
0:45:41 ignoring evidence in order to preserve a
0:45:44 preferred assumption but there is
0:45:47 something wrong with that
0:45:48 it is dishonest to assert as fact that
0:45:51 which is not evidently true yet that's
0:45:52 what all religions did but it's even
0:45:55 worse is that that that wouldn't bet
0:45:58 enough it's even worse to then also say
0:46:02 that you will never admit when you're
0:46:03 wrong it ruins your reputation counts
0:46:07 against your honor and your credibility
0:46:09 and nullifies your work because it shows
0:46:11 that you don't care what the truth is
0:46:13 even in an avenue or
0:46:15 accuracy and accountability are
0:46:17 paramount sommore wants to believe that
0:46:21 what he calls Darwinism is based on
0:46:23 assumptions and he imagines that its
0:46:25 most fundamental ideas have been
0:46:26 disputed but of course
0:46:28 Darwin based his theory not on
0:46:30 assumptions but on observations by
0:46:32 biologists and geologists who came
0:46:33 before him and on his own extensive
0:46:36 observations around the world comparing
0:46:38 variations within species to variations
0:46:40 between species and the reproductive
0:46:42 variables and studying geology and
0:46:44 studying wasn't paleontology and so
0:46:48 forth and of course phylogeny and his
0:46:51 theory was tested and researched for
0:46:54 decades before it was published and it
0:46:57 provided the only explanation ever for
0:47:00 the gutter sets descending from a
0:47:03 branching hierarchy of ancestral period
0:47:06 plates was discovered by carolus
0:47:08 linnaeus a century before him when he
0:47:10 tried his classification of life-forms
0:47:12 sabor says it's not necessary that we
0:47:14 have an explanation for some things and
0:47:16 maybe he's technically correct on some
0:47:18 matters but we do have what does one
0:47:19 mystery the carolus linnaeus could never
0:47:21 answer and that no one could answer
0:47:23 until Darwin
0:47:25 he had the one thing that made
0:47:27 everything make sense
0:47:28 and while he says that the big tree of
0:47:31 life has never been verified where is
0:47:33 now in dispute as director of the
0:47:35 phylogeny Explorer project I find that
0:47:37 quite a surprise because I have this
0:47:40 huge database it's going to be worked on
0:47:42 by scientists around the world and I
0:47:43 don't think I'm going to hear that you
0:47:44 know this isn't real right I'm getting
0:47:46 concrete confirmation from everywhere
0:47:48 about this so no evolution is definitely
0:47:54 not based on assumptions like every
0:47:58 other scientific theory evolution is
0:48:00 based on observable phenomena and
0:48:03 testable hypotheses natural selection
0:48:06 has since been demonstrated each of the
0:48:09 transitional species Darwin predicted
0:48:11 has been found and his idea of an
0:48:15 interrelated Tree of Life has been
0:48:16 verified again and again by many
0:48:18 different ways these are the most
0:48:21 fundamental ideas of Darwinian theory
0:48:23 and there is a consensus confirming each
0:48:26 of them there's some question as to how
0:48:28 it
0:48:28 some of these men can be but there is no
0:48:31 question and absolutely no dispute of
0:48:35 the factual reality of any of them so
0:48:41 more wants to make believe that
0:48:44 evolution is speculative meaning that
0:48:46 it's based on conjecture rather than
0:48:48 actual knowledge but know this too is
0:48:53 demonstrably verifiably obviously
0:48:56 absolutely wrong evolution is and always
0:49:00 was based on what we know and can show
0:49:03 and can prove even to suborn
0:49:05 satisfaction what creationists call
0:49:10 Darwinism and scientists call evolution
0:49:13 is a verifiable inescapable fact of
0:49:17 population genetics and a
0:49:20 paleontological and phylogenetic
0:49:24 certainty that is consistently
0:49:27 continuously conclusively confirmed for
0:49:30 a fast
0:49:39 [Applause]
0:49:42 great job so far guys I talked about
0:49:44 taking a poll to see how we think
0:49:46 they're doing but I thought we'd wait at
0:49:48 least until after the rebuttal so and
0:49:50 the rebuttals are 10 minutes apiece are
0:49:53 you ready
0:49:54 you'll meet a vamp a little bit and even
0:49:55 more time so I can I stories I can tell
0:49:58 jokes song Kansas all right sabore
0:50:01 welcome back up do you want a two-minute
0:50:03 warning before you're done yeah yeah
0:50:15 okay in the name of god the lord of
0:50:18 mercy
0:50:18 the giver of mercy now I knew we were
0:50:21 going to get into technicalities so
0:50:23 that's why I defined what a fact meant
0:50:26 now Aaron said this is what a fact is
0:50:29 and he just explained what it was
0:50:30 there's a big problem with that
0:50:32 if that's a misunderstanding of
0:50:35 basically basic philosophy because fact
0:50:38 has multiple meanings now right the
0:50:41 beginning he said no this is what a fact
0:50:42 means and this is what it this is what I
0:50:44 mean you blow over because then when
0:50:46 going into a discussion we call us you
0:50:49 have to define a term before you
0:50:51 actually use it and they are multiple
0:50:54 meanings of it there's not just one
0:50:56 meaning and I mean we're going to get
0:50:58 into this so I got this from the
0:50:59 Cambridge website this is a philosophy
0:51:02 paper on is the definition of fact the
0:51:04 first problem of philosophy and yes it
0:51:06 is and what it does is it makes the
0:51:08 recommendation a word of universal use
0:51:11 carrying such different meanings cannot
0:51:13 be used in a rational thinking and
0:51:16 argument without causing immense
0:51:18 confusion that is why all who hope to
0:51:21 use reason thoughtfully must make it a
0:51:23 first duty to agree upon a clear
0:51:26 definition of the word but so first
0:51:30 falsehood because us is favorite word is
0:51:33 there are multiple meanings there's not
0:51:35 just one meaning and my original video
0:51:38 is are responded to this is the same way
0:51:40 I defined fact in the video which you
0:51:44 responded to and I came here to again
0:51:46 and I again I used those definitions now
0:51:50 if you don't want to agree to those
0:51:52 definitions and that definition rules it
0:51:54 doesn't change it is certain it is
0:51:57 absolute so if you challenge that
0:51:59 definition it shows you believe it can
0:52:02 change it is not absolute and it is not
0:52:06 certain one thing I just want to get a
0:52:08 good salary whenever I quoted you I
0:52:10 always wanted you were to work but you
0:52:14 made a claim which I don't believe I
0:52:15 said that about the assumption I won't
0:52:17 change my belief if something or
0:52:19 whatever so you need to actually tell me
0:52:20 I said there just to clarify okay you
0:52:23 spoke about the extended synthesis right
0:52:25 so I'm very surprised you said they
0:52:30 incorporating these ideas I have the
0:52:32 extended synthesis I have I'm aware of
0:52:35 all these topics and I'm very surprised
0:52:37 you actually made that claim because
0:52:39 Masatoshi nine Masatoshi nye is an
0:52:47 ardent anti Darwinist in the sense of
0:52:51 the mechanism and he says you know
0:52:54 Darwin's become a god right because he's
0:52:57 angry at that and it's it says it's a
0:53:02 it's a basically like a belief system
0:53:05 writes a dogma and that needs to be
0:53:08 challenged so I'm very surprised you
0:53:09 said that that's in the extended
0:53:11 synthesis I'd like to you to show me how
0:53:13 it is I mean massive fashion I wouldn't
0:53:16 really agree with that
0:53:16 why would oxygen averse you have a book
0:53:18 money if it was just like pseudoscience
0:53:21 okay secondly you spoke about yeah you
0:53:24 spoke about all these ideas they can be
0:53:29 incorporated they can be incorporated
0:53:31 within Darwinism now clearly musashi's
0:53:34 my ideas Khan and if they could why
0:53:37 would they have such a thing as the
0:53:39 third way of evolution James Shapiro he
0:53:41 believes and the evolution biologist who
0:53:43 came up with evolution by natural
0:53:44 genetic engineering he clearly said
0:53:48 Darwinism is a philosophical belief
0:53:50 right more than science he doesn't
0:53:53 believe in God he doesn't believe in
0:53:54 creationist or anything like that and he
0:53:56 challenges it so I'm very very surprised
0:53:58 you believe that these ideas can be
0:53:59 brought back into Darwinism now you want
0:54:03 a Wikipedia and you said the definition
0:54:05 of Darwinism in the US and the UK is
0:54:08 different sorry we just not gonna accept
0:54:10 that that's just the silliest thing I've
0:54:12 heard in the last 10 minutes all right
0:54:16 it is is the duty upon you to do your
0:54:20 research properly so let me just give
0:54:23 you one example which is just off the
0:54:24 top of my head I can give you many other
0:54:26 examples one example so no one uses
0:54:29 about Darwin is a name okay oxygen rest
0:54:31 is just published a book last month
0:54:33 called Darwinism as religion right okay
0:54:37 there's also that's why the atheist
0:54:39 closed for a science Michael ruse
0:54:40 there's many books on this ok I agree
0:54:43 the word is old Alfred Russel Wallace is
0:54:45 the first guy to use the word Darwinism
0:54:48 is not a derogatory term it is not a in
0:54:51 fact Michael ruse but you wrote that
0:54:54 book he called himself a Darwinist see
0:54:57 that she proud yes she believes in the
0:54:59 dahle mechanism so the whole idea of
0:55:02 bringing up Wikipedia and bringing up
0:55:05 and also in your book National Science
0:55:07 Foundation and you said some interesting
0:55:08 things right so National Science
0:55:11 Foundation they are not a published
0:55:14 peer-reviewed philosophical paper
0:55:15 Authority like the general theoretical
0:55:18 biology or other ones how can you use
0:55:20 them as an authority and basically you
0:55:22 quoted off their website and they said
0:55:24 new fad so no new facts can come to
0:55:28 light that will challenge I'm assuming
0:55:30 you affirm to universal common ancestry
0:55:32 ok so that's really quite interesting
0:55:34 and I'm going to get into that because
0:55:36 Jude and I don't want to miss call you
0:55:38 here you said it was an absolute fact
0:55:41 you reconfirmed that the universal
0:55:42 common ancestry is an absolute fact do
0:55:44 you assert that in the article they
0:55:48 wrote no what do you believe what would
0:55:50 you believe Universal common ancestry in
0:55:52 the Tree of Life is a fact it can be pre
0:55:54 pervious ok and you said it was as easy
0:55:56 a Sesame Street except I don't like to
0:55:58 use the word absolute sure
0:56:00 none of us find us fine that's fine okay
0:56:03 so let's let's get into that right
0:56:05 because I thought that was really
0:56:06 interesting okay
0:56:08 universal common ancestry I don't use
0:56:10 the example of Sesame Street
0:56:12 I love Sesame Street are born in the 80s
0:56:15 right I have nothing against 30 right
0:56:18 now it's a horrible haircut the fact of
0:56:21 the matter is you can't use a very
0:56:24 simple trivial thing like look at them
0:56:26 they look similar so they must have a
0:56:28 corn ancestor and I knew this was going
0:56:30 to come up this is why I bought some
0:56:32 books with me right okay
0:56:34 universal common ancestry is based upon
0:56:37 a probabilistic framework which has
0:56:39 assumptions and they are conceptual
0:56:42 problems Aaron called it an absolute
0:56:45 fact okay now I bought the full paper
0:56:48 just in case Aaron thinks I'm misquoting
0:56:50 because I thought he was going to make
0:56:51 that claim this is a formal test of the
0:56:54 theory of universal common ancestry
0:56:56 right and it clearly said is hardly but
0:56:59 it's rarely been subjected to form a
0:57:02 quantity of testing and it's difficult a
0:57:05 technically difficult to impurity
0:57:07 evaluating a theory of such a broad
0:57:10 scope so it's not an absolute fact it is
0:57:12 a theory if it was then why would people
0:57:15 be writing papers about it and saying
0:57:17 these particular things certainty this
0:57:21 is a the Journal of theoretical biology
0:57:25 testing the test testing the hypothesis
0:57:27 of common ancestry this is what it says
0:57:29 the hypothesis that all of life on earth
0:57:31 and remember him and him in his book
0:57:33 this book right here which I'm promoting
0:57:35 hadisha give me some sunlight is a lie
0:57:38 right the hypothesis that all life on
0:57:41 Earth traces back to a single common
0:57:42 ancestor which you called an absolute
0:57:44 fact and equivalent to reality denied
0:57:46 neighbors okay
0:57:47 the hypotheses are all of life traces
0:57:49 back to a single common ancestor is a
0:57:51 fundamental postulate in evolutionary
0:57:54 theory yet despite its widespread
0:57:56 acceptance in biology there has been
0:57:59 comparatively little evidence to
0:58:01 formally testing this hypothesis of
0:58:04 common ancestry and it goes on and I
0:58:06 mentioned the same thing the nature
0:58:07 article does which is that there is
0:58:09 intrinsic difficult
0:58:10 and I highlighted this for you right in
0:58:13 the beginning so I thought you're going
0:58:14 to make this mistake there is actually a
0:58:16 section on this which is about why a
0:58:19 pause may be unknowable which is what I
0:58:22 was referring to and I said speculative
0:58:24 so when it comes to oh my gosh okay when
0:58:28 it comes to Universal common ancestry
0:58:29 right arrow made some very interesting
0:58:31 claims okay
0:58:34 Sesame Street that's ridiculous
0:58:37 try and find a evolutionary biologist
0:58:39 that's going to agree with our
0:58:40 philosopher of science that's going
0:58:41 agree with that I'm just going to
0:58:42 highlight two books here this is
0:58:44 evidence in evolution by community
0:58:46 University and this is parsimony
0:58:49 phylogeny and genomics by Oxford
0:58:51 University this is what the books agree
0:58:52 over universal common ancestry is based
0:58:57 on a probabilistic framework which has
0:58:59 assumptions and these conceptual
0:59:01 problems so let's look at Aaron's Sesame
0:59:03 Street example and let's look at what
0:59:05 they say Universal common ancestry and
0:59:07 separate ancestry are testable
0:59:09 hypotheses nothing about semistate
0:59:11 Sesame Street so far claiming homology
0:59:13 which is similarity due to comment
0:59:15 descent your your Sesame Street example
0:59:17 claiming homology is a fact and then
0:59:19 testing it using and then testing it and
0:59:23 then trusting Universal common ancestry
0:59:25 versus separate ancestry is circular
0:59:28 reasoning
0:59:28 another thing the agreeable homology is
0:59:31 a fundamental assumption of universal
0:59:34 common ancestry similarities and
0:59:36 dissimilarities should be put within a
0:59:38 probabilistic framework home obviously
0:59:40 which of similarity is not due to common
0:59:41 descent is an is also an assumption and
0:59:45 is assumed to exist and complicates the
0:59:47 assumption of homology the Sesame Street
0:59:49 example ad hoc hypotheses can't be
0:59:52 eliminated in the universal common
0:59:54 ancestry hypothesis but have to be
0:59:56 minimized but here's something they do
0:59:58 agree about both the following thoughts
1:00:00 are naive and I'm quoting word-to-word
1:00:02 just in case you say our views quoted
1:00:03 them humans and chimps must share a
1:00:05 common ancestor because they are so
1:00:07 similar and humans and mushrooms must
1:00:09 have arisen independently because they
1:00:11 are so different within a probabilistic
1:00:14 framework there is no must in either
1:00:16 case you're not going to find words
1:00:17 absolute factorial to Don one last thing
1:00:20 if I'm allowed to say you are upset
1:00:22 about the phylogeny
1:00:23 The Tree of Life keep you to your life
1:00:24 no problem but the issue is I am not
1:00:28 challenging you and saying oh I don't
1:00:31 like to treat therefore challengingly
1:00:33 Princeton University or a philosopher of
1:00:35 science Peter Godfrey Smith he's
1:00:37 speaking website colleges are moving
1:00:39 away from the tree of life can the web
1:00:41 online so if you've got you know
1:00:42 something to say you know you should go
1:00:45 speak to those people and remember every
1:00:47 single person I'm referring to our
1:00:49 mainstream evolutionary biologists and
1:00:51 philosophers of science
1:00:54 I'm not going to Bertie I was going to
1:00:59 have to get my hook out all right that's
1:01:03 pretty good are you ready or do you need
1:01:05 me to vamp alright come on up
1:01:07 ten minutes do I'm going to give you a
1:01:09 two-minute warning yeah okay well okay
1:01:12 let me know when to shut up all right
1:01:17 when I give the definition of effect I
1:01:20 how many definitions did I put up on the
1:01:22 board at least a half a dozen was a more
1:01:24 I verified all the definitive sources I
1:01:26 could find right scientific sources
1:01:28 mainstream colloquial sources whatever
1:01:30 and I showed that all of these
1:01:32 definitions agree right we have that on
1:01:34 the wall I know what's behind his head I
1:01:35 should have should have told him to turn
1:01:36 around look because he said I didn't
1:01:37 verify my definitions what he said since
1:01:42 he wanted clarification of this in his
1:01:45 video that I was responding to he said
1:01:47 something about the scientist that we're
1:01:49 comparing the human genome of the
1:01:50 chimpanzee team out and they found very
1:01:52 few letters as he put him that matched
1:01:54 and that he found they've got billions
1:01:56 of letters it didn't match so they just
1:01:58 ignored him and he said there's nothing
1:02:00 wrong with that because they assumed
1:02:03 that their perspective is okay whether
1:02:05 they're professor if their perspective
1:02:07 is true and so anything that doesn't
1:02:10 match that they can have confirmation
1:02:11 bias he didn't use the word confirmation
1:02:13 bias but he explained confirmation bias
1:02:15 you can just ignore all that that
1:02:17 doesn't match and when I made the video
1:02:19 to address that I put text above his
1:02:21 head to say and probably he should have
1:02:24 watched the whole video before making a
1:02:25 public debate about it where it said you
1:02:28 think it's okay to ignore evidence for a
1:02:32 preferred assumption because I thought
1:02:33 that was quite an admission to make
1:02:35 and of course scientists wouldn't do
1:02:37 that conclusions can change as we've
1:02:40 established and in the definitions from
1:02:41 the scientific sites that I showed they
1:02:44 say can but there are some that are so
1:02:46 well established that they are
1:02:48 considered fact that these things are
1:02:50 not going to change and in the video
1:02:51 that originally addressed he gave two
1:02:53 different definitions for fact one of
1:02:55 them he said being absolute right which
1:02:59 we know the definition of absolute is
1:03:01 not in there but the earth going around
1:03:02 the side was one of his facts that it
1:03:05 would be absolute that evolution is not
1:03:07 going to be that like one of the things
1:03:09 that I brought up is whether we're ever
1:03:11 going to find out if that earth doesn't
1:03:13 go around the Sun can't we be absolutely
1:03:15 certain about that nobody can be
1:03:18 absolutely certain about anything but if
1:03:20 we understand the laws of nature would
1:03:21 understand the laws of physics within
1:03:23 this reality unless this is a matrix
1:03:24 illusion if we all agree that reality is
1:03:26 real by definition there are some things
1:03:28 we can be absolutely certain about right
1:03:30 some things I try to be very hesitant
1:03:33 when I use that word and I'm not going
1:03:35 to use it perfect because we know what
1:03:36 the definition is and it's whether
1:03:38 something can be verified and everything
1:03:39 I've been talking about so far tonight
1:03:41 are things that we could definitely
1:03:42 verify thank you for proving my point
1:03:45 when you mentioned that nobody uses
1:03:47 where Darwinism anymore I did say nobody
1:03:48 in America but that they still do in
1:03:51 England so he uses the example yeah
1:03:53 there so it doesn't subscribe from
1:03:54 Oxford what country is that thank you
1:03:57 very much and Bosnia is Remington tested
1:04:01 no by allows me is constantly tested
1:04:03 they're doing whole genome searches
1:04:05 every day now it took years to do the
1:04:07 first one it took another year or more
1:04:09 to do the second one and then they
1:04:10 started picking up this peak and they've
1:04:12 got computers that will now do this
1:04:13 constantly we have a lot of Corrections
1:04:15 in philosophies now which would we
1:04:18 aren't expecting with what where they
1:04:19 used to do things by morphology so how
1:04:20 do I use Sesame Street promo quality
1:04:22 because you can't use a you know the
1:04:25 simple analysis of difficult or from
1:04:27 morphological traits to come up with a
1:04:28 common ancestor I didn't say that I said
1:04:31 you can figure out the hierarchy
1:04:32 carolus linnaeus figured out this huge
1:04:35 quandary because he was expecting that
1:04:37 he was going to show created kinds when
1:04:39 he started classifying life-forms but he
1:04:41 bound this like set of matroyshka trolls
1:04:44 near the russian dolls when one doll
1:04:46 inside the other except that each doll
1:04:47 has four dolls inside
1:04:49 something like that on average so @y or
1:04:52 at least hit let's go with 8 now to the
1:04:53 2 every doll has two dolls in it and
1:04:55 then every oath adult Hadley branch why
1:04:57 that doesn't make any sense that doesn't
1:04:58 fit with creation he never thought about
1:05:02 the idea of a common ancestor because he
1:05:06 thought they were created but he used
1:05:09 the Sesame Street method to build this
1:05:11 tree of life and then was had a quandary
1:05:13 to try to figure out how could this
1:05:15 think any challenge the scientific
1:05:16 community to explaining him how we are
1:05:18 not apes or the names are not people
1:05:20 because he classified up in spoke and
1:05:22 the scientific community also unable to
1:05:25 explain that at the time decided to make
1:05:28 an arbitrary contrived classification
1:05:31 called
1:05:32 genus Pongo which they put all of the
1:05:35 nonhuman a system but if you have to say
1:05:38 you know that all of them except us
1:05:39 that's kind of a perennial invention
1:05:42 that you already realize me on should be
1:05:44 in that set and it wasn't until about 20
1:05:46 years ago the genetics finally confirmed
1:05:50 conclusively and if I may say so
1:05:53 absolutely the humans are infecting that
1:05:58 we are Apes both by definition and
1:05:59 derivation genetically and
1:06:01 morphologically it's a twin nested
1:06:03 hierarchy we can now check the
1:06:04 morphology and sometimes we get it right
1:06:06 most the time I get it right just
1:06:08 looking at the traits there sometimes we
1:06:10 didn't get it right and the genes showed
1:06:13 no it's on this bridge nutless lee so
1:06:15 there are corrections that we've
1:06:17 discovered from this because we now have
1:06:18 a way of doing a paternity test on all
1:06:21 of our distant ancestors and these are
1:06:25 all things that he doesn't want to
1:06:26 accept and I'm sorry sabor but you've
1:06:27 given all these citations of things that
1:06:29 you don't understand like the bush of
1:06:32 like the web of life the bush of life
1:06:34 that's my argument I said that the tree
1:06:37 of life is really a total weed and
1:06:40 because of course one can transfer
1:06:41 they're not trying to replace the tree
1:06:43 of life with the web of life the tree of
1:06:45 life applies only to eukaryotes and it
1:06:48 may be deeply divided between plants and
1:06:50 animals but the tree of life if it's one
1:06:53 tree or two trees we're not entirely
1:06:54 certain I think it's one tree but it
1:06:57 starts with an F we're going to get into
1:06:59 that but anyway just let's just say one
1:07:01 tree that
1:07:02 it's early on it rises out of a web I
1:07:05 don't believe in a single Universal
1:07:08 common ancestor
1:07:09 I don't yet for all animals yes that we
1:07:16 have a common ancestor with aims
1:07:18 absolutely but not for all life all life
1:07:22 emerged separately in pieces and
1:07:24 incrementally and started gathering
1:07:26 together this is one of the things that
1:07:27 endosymbiosis has shown us yours
1:07:30 yourselves most of your body is actually
1:07:32 bacterial most of your cells are not
1:07:34 your cells and all of your cells are
1:07:37 powered by bacteria there's a Rickettsia
1:07:41 bacteria which is so normally parasitic
1:07:43 normally cause rates but there's a type
1:07:46 of bacteria that you know it better is
1:07:48 mitochondria that was apparently trapped
1:07:51 disabled it Rickettsia invades itself
1:07:54 does damage to the cell takes off but if
1:07:57 it's disabled where it can't take off
1:07:58 again then the cell takes it over and
1:08:00 starts using it ability to generate
1:08:02 energy
1:08:03 so it starts generating ATP and then
1:08:06 when they put cell splits the Rickettsia
1:08:09 splits separately and plants also they
1:08:12 have core of the pair what they call the
1:08:14 chlorophyll is actually cyanobacteria
1:08:18 again this is bacteria inside eukaryote
1:08:21 cells so we don't come from one source
1:08:24 we come from multiple sources at the
1:08:25 beginning of the tree but then from then
1:08:27 on we can chart a full tree of life and
1:08:31 I think I'm done well two minutes left
1:08:34 if you want to yeah obviously oh yeah
1:08:37 yeah sabor has this position that he is
1:08:41 aware of things like transitional
1:08:43 species like the Australopithecus for
1:08:45 example this can't be explained and were
1:08:48 predicted and fulfilled the predictions
1:08:50 of science but he chooses to ignore them
1:08:52 you'll make the statement he'll turn
1:08:53 he'll try to discredit it and he'll say
1:08:55 there is no missing link I'm sorry there
1:08:57 was a prediction made in the 1800's that
1:09:00 prediction was satisfied in 1974 you
1:09:02 should at least acknowledge that hey it
1:09:04 was predicted and found don't just
1:09:06 ignore it don't say it never existed
1:09:08 that's not honest evolution is not based
1:09:11 on assumptions there is no
1:09:13 view that the fundamental ideas of
1:09:14 Darwinian theory and it damn sure is not
1:09:18 speculative this is based on we know
1:09:24 I'll go ahead and just stay here because
1:09:26 the next portion of our evening is the
1:09:28 one on one which I'm a little afraid to
1:09:30 do between you guys but we have a point
1:09:33 so we're going to take 20 minutes and
1:09:35 just let you guys kind of go any kind of
1:09:36 but if I notice either Jews being a hog
1:09:39 with the time and I reserve the right to
1:09:42 shush you and let the other one go but I
1:09:44 think we're all ready to go
1:09:46 that's obscene gloves as it were and I'm
1:09:48 going to start the timer and let you
1:09:50 guys talk okay
1:09:53 so thanks for your I think your the
1:09:56 rebuttal so you said that you know
1:10:02 humans and chimps like it's an absolute
1:10:05 fact that we have a common ancestor okay
1:10:08 so I don't even read our head from here
1:10:10 really out directly
1:10:12 I'm not going to paraphrase it and I
1:10:13 want you to tell me with other in line
1:10:15 with what you just said the following
1:10:18 thoughts are naive humans and chimps
1:10:21 must share a common ancestor because
1:10:23 they are so similar
1:10:24 33 and humans and mushrooms must have
1:10:27 arisen independently because they are so
1:10:29 different within a probabilistic
1:10:31 framework there is no must in either
1:10:34 case now I'm very surprised that even
1:10:37 though I bought two books here and I
1:10:39 mentioned to you there saying is based
1:10:41 on a probabilistic framework based upon
1:10:42 assumptions and this conceptual problems
1:10:44 such as homology being a fundamental
1:10:47 assumption not in a non-circular way and
1:10:49 the problem hole clearly none of which
1:10:51 is mentioned in your book which what is
1:10:52 mentioned is the Sesame Street type
1:10:54 thinking how can you continue to say
1:10:56 humans and chimps must have a common
1:10:59 answer sense absolute when people like
1:11:01 Cambridge University Oxford University
1:11:03 disagree with you
1:11:04 they don't disagree with me that's the
1:11:06 things you keep citing to experts that
1:11:08 you think disagree with me and they
1:11:10 don't I can show you that they don't you
1:11:13 cited craig Venter as supposedly
1:11:15 disagreed with me no I do mind animation
1:11:16 craig Venter to here in another video
1:11:19 that I've that everybody were paying
1:11:20 attention to you cited craig Venter has
1:11:22 disagreed with me
1:11:23 explained their no this is what grant
1:11:25 Venter was talking about you didn't
1:11:27 understand it you don't understand any
1:11:28 of the experts you're talking about I
1:11:30 don't say that it must be because of
1:11:32 this one reason no why does Shem pansies
1:11:35 and humans have a common ancestor
1:11:36 because we have a genetic conformation
1:11:38 for it we have the genetic code to prove
1:11:40 it it's not just a morphology it's also
1:11:43 on genetics okay this book when it's
1:11:46 actually referring to this thing that
1:11:48 within a populist ik framework there is
1:11:50 no must he refers to the physiology
1:11:52 morphology and genetic scheme so you ask
1:11:57 me a question that the way the question
1:11:59 is phrased is noses I corrected the
1:12:02 question and gave the correct answer so
1:12:04 when you said previously before you came
1:12:08 down was it's an absolute fact that they
1:12:10 have a common ancestor yes okay this
1:12:13 book doesn't say that no it doesn't say
1:12:15 that it's just another thing that you
1:12:17 gauge that it must be because they're so
1:12:19 similar that would be ridiculous honor
1:12:22 let's extend that it's not because
1:12:23 they're so simple it's because we have
1:12:26 the genetic confirmation of it and I'm I
1:12:29 don't know whether you're not listening
1:12:30 to this so you don't want to listen to
1:12:32 this it literally says to say they have
1:12:36 a common ancestor II is all explained
1:12:41 once again story in a java-based
1:12:42 agreement one second sighs Fernan quoted
1:12:44 directly within a probabilistic
1:12:46 framework there is no must in either
1:12:48 case for both these books they treat
1:12:50 common ancestry and separate ancestry
1:12:52 has testable hypotheses they treat
1:12:55 homology similarities due to similar
1:12:58 common descent recipes for example as a
1:13:02 probabilistic framework which has
1:13:04 assumptions which has problems
1:13:06 okay for it I'm assuming you haven't
1:13:07 read these two books because they
1:13:08 weren't none of this was in your book
1:13:10 all right and you now I'm reading direct
1:13:12 quote to you which doesn't really think
1:13:15 you'd say managing it I can't because
1:13:18 what you read doesn't help your case and
1:13:20 you don't understand that my fantasies
1:13:23 and humans have to it must have a common
1:13:25 ancestor it would be ridiculous to say
1:13:27 that you as a chimpanzees must have a
1:13:28 common ancestor because they're so
1:13:30 similar yes that sentence is correct and
1:13:32 that's not why I say they have a common
1:13:34 ancestor I said
1:13:36 but within the last 20 years or so we
1:13:38 finally got the genetic confirmation to
1:13:39 prove it
1:13:40 and it had nothing to do with that
1:13:42 sentence this book is referring to
1:13:44 genetics morphology and physiology but
1:13:47 that's not I notice you got is it it is
1:13:50 the sentence you got says nothing have
1:13:54 you know about nope
1:13:55 did you know Els pulsing it I read the
1:13:57 whole thing did you read that book if
1:13:59 you read that sentence tell me where the
1:14:01 word genetics or anything a blind
1:14:03 genetics shows up in that sentence
1:14:04 perfect okay
1:14:06 can we if it does would you admit your
1:14:10 honor if the word genetics or something
1:14:12 implying genetics shows up in the book
1:14:14 yep yeah reading the same sentence again
1:14:16 will skip any new words pop up okay I
1:14:18 didn't read the whole sentence because
1:14:21 of the size of it I don't they are
1:14:22 highlighted here right let me know when
1:14:25 it does mention genetics much in the
1:14:28 things you read to me did not have
1:14:32 genetic skillet you said that you can't
1:14:35 say that they have whether you should
1:14:36 you there's no must now changing the
1:14:38 goalposts can I read art and I'm not I
1:14:40 said it I read it read and I read if I
1:14:42 said the sentence you read did not Lydia
1:14:45 was correct that it didn't make sense
1:14:47 there is no must that it there's not
1:14:48 because they have determinable again now
1:14:50 can I read it
1:14:51 whether much of made in popular press or
1:14:54 the fact that DNA sequences of humans
1:14:56 and chimps are about 90% similar if this
1:14:59 similarity compelling evidence that
1:15:00 really and should share a common
1:15:02 ancestor since since each site in the
1:15:05 sequence is character capitalized by
1:15:07 four nuclear sites we have here a set of
1:15:10 four state naught D comesss characters
1:15:13 but the point about the process of
1:15:14 generating the data is the same the
1:15:17 expected percentage similarity of humans
1:15:19 and chimps according to the separate
1:15:20 ancestry hypothesis would be 25% if each
1:15:24 site involves independent evolved
1:15:26 independently by the process of random
1:15:28 genetic drift and the lineages have been
1:15:32 involving for a long time in this case
1:15:34 the observed similarity of 98% was
1:15:37 strongly favored from an ancestry over
1:15:39 supper ancestry however if there was a
1:15:42 strong selection in each lineage for the
1:15:44 traits that one observes the expected
1:15:45 degree of similarity would be about the
1:15:48 same regardless of whether
1:15:49 the common ancestry all the separate
1:15:52 ancestry hypothesis is true and then I
1:15:55 mentioned the sentence I mentioned so
1:15:56 it's within the context of genetics
1:15:58 physiology and morphology and it doesn't
1:16:01 mention anything that was discovered
1:16:03 since 1974 we already knew that and you
1:16:05 go off tonight and you know what tune
1:16:07 Junt you going off you're talking about
1:16:09 something else now no one you said
1:16:11 disorder Franco genetic where you're
1:16:13 trying to genetics right you you're
1:16:15 interrupting before I'm excited what I
1:16:17 just not attended it's all the same
1:16:18 thing
1:16:18 okay I did tell you there was just in
1:16:20 the last twenty years we had
1:16:21 confirmation of us we did know in 1974
1:16:25 that we have this one or six percent
1:16:27 similarity depending on how you measure
1:16:29 it but that wasn't the conclusive factor
1:16:32 it was the human human chimp genome
1:16:34 number two it was the conclusive factor
1:16:37 they all saying is a conclusive factor
1:16:39 they say I know that now fine we agree
1:16:42 that we agree in on what we really
1:16:46 desire that argument doesn't help you
1:16:49 know you said as an absolute fact and
1:16:51 according to mainstream academic it is
1:16:52 based on a probabilistic framework which
1:16:55 has assumptions and conceptually oblems
1:16:57 like homology homo lazy exercise that it
1:17:01 didn't bring up the conclusive factor
1:17:02 that I just mentioned I'll get right of
1:17:05 what many is never seen important it
1:17:07 brought up with the new in 1974 but
1:17:10 didn't bring up what they knew in 1994
1:17:13 okay it's interesting this book was
1:17:19 published in 2008 so English
1:17:20 universities and up to date it's not my
1:17:22 so my father they don't include the
1:17:24 conclusive factor you said it you said
1:17:26 it was a bias work already you said it
1:17:28 was already somebody that doesn't agree
1:17:29 with us of course he's not going to
1:17:31 explain how a human chimp when you do
1:17:34 that
1:17:34 I know one second one second any a sober
1:17:36 believes in human ancestry right it does
1:17:40 he does okay we you said I thought you
1:17:42 said he didn't not as we know as yes
1:17:45 okay well what else do you have to say
1:17:49 because you're saying it's an absolute
1:17:50 fact and it's not why I leave my
1:17:52 department so you and Tim Tino number
1:17:54 two doesn't exist because it didn't show
1:17:56 up that very well I might hang on a
1:17:59 fattie the conclusive factor I not
1:18:02 mentioned there doesn't exist because
1:18:04 it's not mentioned mo you are saying it
1:18:06 really nice expertise is in question
1:18:08 because you free filter bids on that
1:18:10 let's just assume okay let's say this in
1:18:12 Cambridge University doin what they're
1:18:13 talking about right yes I want to bring
1:18:16 up something you're on take on second
1:18:17 you're still referring to homology are
1:18:20 you not no I wasn't at all so this has
1:18:24 me it's wrong Sesame Street now so so
1:18:26 history was homology yes and that's not
1:18:29 the reason that's why your sentence
1:18:30 didn't make any sense so that's why I
1:18:32 had to correct it because it wasn't
1:18:34 about monkey
1:18:35 your book goes and mentioned some ology
1:18:38 many many many many times right
1:18:40 throughout the book
1:18:41 well I found surprising no homo lazy no
1:18:44 no discussion of the fact that it is
1:18:46 probabilistic framework based on some
1:18:49 assumptions and they are conceptual
1:18:51 problems and no words and this is why I
1:18:53 found really shocking not once did you
1:18:56 actually explain that you assume
1:18:58 homology and then say the two things are
1:19:03 similar therefore they must have a
1:19:04 common ancestor this is such in a
1:19:06 reasoning I never said anything like
1:19:08 that
1:19:09 no one thing is why didn't you say why
1:19:10 didn't I use a circular argument because
1:19:12 I'm wise you know we never hang on one
1:19:15 second
1:19:15 you never said assume homology where
1:19:17 they hang on do you ignore honor
1:19:20 you used homology right by a 2-lane
1:19:25 homology I didn't say anybody should
1:19:27 assume it I never said it would each
1:19:29 other submitting you did the same
1:19:31 paragraph actually and he's going out
1:19:33 there's some paragraph where you said
1:19:35 it's are so similar to us that you know
1:19:39 if some of those ancient ape human
1:19:41 ancestors were alive you know we
1:19:44 couldn't we want to be able to classify
1:19:45 them separately
1:19:46 right the script if that managing yes if
1:19:50 you can't understand if I can't
1:19:51 distinguished a a transitional
1:19:54 transitional person between the between
1:19:57 the divergence human versions from
1:19:59 chimps to modern men if you can look at
1:20:02 one of these people in this in germanium
1:20:03 and you can't tell if they're a poor if
1:20:06 they're human that's kind of the
1:20:07 definitive characteristic of being
1:20:09 transitioning and that you want as this
1:20:10 person and you can't de su are they a /
1:20:13 are they human this is why I brought up
1:20:15 in that book that creationists were
1:20:16 given a set of skulls to examine it's
1:20:19 actually one still Duane Gish identified
1:20:22 this one skullcap as being a hundred
1:20:24 percent eight or I think it 100 percent
1:20:26 human the first time then they gave it
1:20:27 somebody else that's a I can't remember
1:20:30 what P 2000 and then they give it to
1:20:32 another creation as the third creation
1:20:34 Bluebell I think and he said it was a
1:20:36 hundred percent human so we've got two
1:20:37 oldest discrepancy let me give it back
1:20:39 to guess again like six years later and
1:20:41 now what he said was 100% human he now
1:20:43 says designer percent hey it's the same
1:20:45 sculpt he's just looking at the same
1:20:48 skull again so he puts it a hundred
1:20:50 percent on both sides of any category
1:20:52 and they the other two guys didn't agree
1:20:55 with each other either so he can't
1:20:56 decide even what it is
1:20:58 then isn't that exactly what a
1:21:00 transitional species is okay so you
1:21:04 mentioned quantity vaccinated me and
1:21:07 that was used as proof of common descent
1:21:09 no because you'll see me those Apes our
1:21:13 ancestors quite know what you can say if
1:21:18 you I was explaining the transitional
1:21:20 species
1:21:21 if you encounter what what people were
1:21:24 asking for an ape-man right and then
1:21:26 they were given an eighth and they were
1:21:27 given bull erectus clearly what they
1:21:29 understood to be ape with the cording
1:21:31 that contrived artificially constructed
1:21:33 genus pongo
1:21:34 right if you have to put a saloon
1:21:36 category humans in another well then
1:21:37 this is this one is one is an eight man
1:21:39 and then they picked up thousands of
1:21:41 other ones thousands of individuals a
1:21:43 couple dozen species perhaps of what
1:21:46 they think both ape and man you can't
1:21:48 tell them apart this is before they get
1:21:50 to tchen etics we've already got where
1:21:52 we have Homo habilis and Homo
1:21:54 rudolfensis in early
1:21:57 Rekha's was all over the place they're
1:21:58 all different sizes and shapes there
1:22:00 were way more colors than what our
1:22:02 people are mechanizing today I've read
1:22:03 the book so I don't need to explain
1:22:05 again you're using homology my question
1:22:07 is very particularly let me ask the
1:22:09 question you can answer it you mentioned
1:22:11 homology right and you at the end of the
1:22:14 book you had loads of facts in there
1:22:15 it's a fact that we have a common
1:22:16 ancestor the fact is definitive you can
1:22:18 take the genomes and you can get basal
1:22:20 form you said it's a fact fact yet and I
1:22:22 find this very strange you didn't
1:22:24 mention the fact that homology and to
1:22:28 use homology is we just use it within a
1:22:32 probabilistic framework which has
1:22:34 assumptions and they are conceptual
1:22:35 problems not once did you mention that
1:22:38 there is such a thing as home plating
1:22:40 and not once did you actually mention
1:22:43 that they are conceptual problems within
1:22:45 this and this is based upon Bayesian
1:22:49 decomposition with nine mathematical
1:22:51 assumptions and then you get a
1:22:53 probabilistic framework and somebody
1:22:56 could be justified and actually saying
1:22:58 Universal common ancestry is probable
1:23:01 yet are there other conditions as
1:23:03 mentioned in this book and he's an
1:23:05 atheist mother he didn't believe in God
1:23:06 under other assumptions separate
1:23:09 ancestry favors universal common
1:23:11 ancestry right now if you mentioned that
1:23:14 your book I would have no problem and I
1:23:16 did I did explain probabilistic yes why
1:23:20 do you worry a factor because of fact
1:23:23 it's not absolute okay that's good
1:23:27 you said that now I don't I might go
1:23:29 with the definition that I provided in
1:23:30 the book I don't and I showed a
1:23:32 consensus deposition on the board it's a
1:23:35 point of data that can be objectively
1:23:36 verified and bear in mind the book is
1:23:42 dealing with creationist arguments yes
1:23:44 oh I learnt attacking specific ones I
1:23:46 did explain how science works not with
1:23:50 the type of certainty or assertion that
1:23:52 religious beliefs have but rather that
1:23:55 you use you can speculate you can make
1:23:59 an assumption but you have to
1:24:00 by testing it okay it has to be based on
1:24:03 evidence and then it has be testable and
1:24:05 potentially falsifiable and that you
1:24:07 cannot make an unsupported assertion
1:24:10 like you do it religion okay here you're
1:24:12 worth exactly and if I may quote you I'm
1:24:15 going to give you this we're recording
1:24:16 everything so somebody can go online and
1:24:18 find out right it would be perverse to
1:24:21 say taxonomical classification are
1:24:23 fantasticly probable extra job
1:24:25 coincidence that would be a statistical
1:24:28 impossibility which reaches into the
1:24:30 realm of reality denial here it is an
1:24:33 absolute fact really said yeah you have
1:24:37 a qualifier that this fact is absolute
1:24:40 little work fact is not absolute the
1:24:43 definition of fact is not a violence but
1:24:45 some facts are absolutely and I just
1:24:47 explained that five minutes ago taking
1:24:50 your five minutes that's how much you
1:24:51 have left I so how would you explain
1:24:56 that you know you make these predictions
1:24:58 or they are nobody predicted
1:24:59 homo-erectus that was a bit of a
1:25:01 surprise right and people found a
1:25:03 neanderthalensis that was a bit
1:25:05 confusing but then you get into Homo
1:25:07 erectus and now you can find Homo
1:25:09 erectus all over the place you have the
1:25:10 jutting bro way up they give up the
1:25:12 400cc with a little bit bigger than that
1:25:14 maybe up to 1300 but is a wide range
1:25:16 wide wide range of heights and
1:25:19 everything's displaced all over Asia and
1:25:21 Africa and parts of Europe how do you
1:25:25 account for Homo habilis over defenses
1:25:27 Homo floresiensis coming to dodging yeah
1:25:29 I mean what do you mean by that
1:25:32 like how do i account for as a nesting
1:25:33 how do you account for it you you're
1:25:37 asking as a Muslim alright so I'm I'm
1:25:39 asking you yeah okay we high lonesome
1:25:42 sahaja I really think this mom and I'm
1:25:44 not going to say well you as a Libra if
1:25:46 did this matter yeah ask me the question
1:25:48 and I'll answer there's no answer but
1:25:51 what are you get the answer because
1:25:52 you're asking a question without
1:25:55 actually putting an actual question in
1:25:57 there it sounds like a question but it's
1:25:59 like how do you calculate how do you
1:26:00 account for it in what terms because the
1:26:03 look okay let me let me answer it - is
1:26:05 kamala as a Muslim Mazda liberal and low
1:26:08 founder answering your context to this
1:26:09 debate right number one anything that
1:26:13 they find home on the large a homo
1:26:14 erectus you know whatever they find to
1:26:18 to take those skulls and to take a line
1:26:21 of fossils and to claim that this is the
1:26:24 descendant of this according to Henry II
1:26:25 and you can do shreya biologists just
1:26:27 like all the rest of them and an atheist
1:26:30 he says that it is not a scientific
1:26:33 hypotheses that can be tested but a
1:26:36 bedtime story you can't prove it with a
1:26:39 fact is what Henry G says in his book
1:26:42 misunderstandings of human evolution
1:26:44 right give you the example a also that
1:26:47 question right so if you're going to use
1:26:50 similarities and say therefore common
1:26:51 descent then I'm just going to repeat
1:26:53 the same thing like I did previously
1:26:54 like a parrot that is based upon a
1:26:56 probabilistic framework which has
1:26:58 assumptions and this conceptual problems
1:27:00 such as hormone Flavie similarities
1:27:03 which are not due to cover design so if
1:27:05 you're going to maintain the line of
1:27:06 Sesame Street similarity that you to
1:27:08 come descent except when they're not in
1:27:10 the list you just support or exploit
1:27:12 materialism to or limit the mediator
1:27:14 miss Lance right secondly and this is a
1:27:16 Muslim right okay these things existed I
1:27:20 mean it's not a theological problem for
1:27:23 us
1:27:23 I mean theological look if we're going
1:27:25 to get again to this theological II it's
1:27:27 not even a problem if you know somebody
1:27:30 says okay you know the whale evolved
1:27:34 from some sort of landmark I mean look
1:27:36 these things are relevant right when it
1:27:39 comes to Islam it's a religion in which
1:27:40 you worship the one creator believe God
1:27:43 is the cause behind all things but when
1:27:46 he gives in to particular things about
1:27:47 this might be an ancestor of this so
1:27:49 this might be this particular thing let
1:27:51 us not the way I think about it let the
1:27:53 scientists do they work right that's why
1:27:55 I accept it as a paradigm I accept it as
1:27:57 a model I accept it as a theory but the
1:27:59 same reason I believe that it is not an
1:28:03 absolute fact is the same reason why you
1:28:04 believe string theory is not an absolute
1:28:07 fact because they're both scientific
1:28:09 theories
1:28:11 but these theory of evolution meets the
1:28:13 definition of a fact we're a stirring
1:28:16 very definitely I the way I define
1:28:18 factor the beginning oh no not the way
1:28:19 the world defines fact the way the half
1:28:22 a dozen different definitive definitions
1:28:24 that I gave up there or what if that is
1:28:27 David I'm going to give this to the
1:28:29 present for you to read right there is
1:28:31 no consensus on it this is why it gives
1:28:34 you the piece of advice until I knew
1:28:36 where get this isn't on top it gives you
1:28:39 a piece of advice and I don't know
1:28:40 really address so very one second he
1:28:43 actually said you're also saying there's
1:28:46 15 definitions whatever I do so there's
1:28:48 no way to prove okay one automatically a
1:28:50 word of universal use carrying such
1:28:53 different meanings cannot be used in a
1:28:54 rational way and argument without
1:28:56 causing immense confusion that is why
1:28:59 all you hope to use reason fruitfully
1:29:01 must make it their first duty to agree
1:29:04 upon a clear definition of fact now my
1:29:06 original video which you responded to by
1:29:09 defined fact in the exact same way that
1:29:12 I defined fact today and there are
1:29:15 multiple ways you can actually define it
1:29:17 until today philosophers of science
1:29:20 philosophers of language they disagree
1:29:22 on a definition so you're saying the 16
1:29:25 definition and generally they would say
1:29:27 these things is not that simple
1:29:28 no it is that simple I showed a half a
1:29:30 dozen definitions that all agree on the
1:29:32 primary point that it's information that
1:29:34 can be verified when you define fact in
1:29:36 your video you in two different
1:29:37 definitions one of them contradicted the
1:29:39 other one you said was that effect is
1:29:41 something that is absolute like the
1:29:43 earthquake which by the way is a theory
1:29:46 and you said a theory can't be effect
1:29:47 and then you said that if there that you
1:29:49 define fact as a working model or the
1:29:52 best the best hypothesis we have
1:29:54 currently for the data which also
1:29:56 doesn't make City sense and doesn't
1:29:58 define fact and you can't find any
1:30:00 definitive source to support you on
1:30:01 either one okay so today I'm going to
1:30:04 have you there and I just say one thing
1:30:05 I have antenna gate won't be just one
1:30:07 thing we'll see I'll get you one more if
1:30:09 I get one right okay this is we can
1:30:14 observe the earth going around the Sun I
1:30:17 don't know why you're putting in theory
1:30:19 okay because you don't know what Theory
1:30:21 means I just read the definition my body
1:30:24 of knowledge in the field of study it
1:30:26 encompasses facts and laws and testable
1:30:29 hypotheses and indirect observation yes
1:30:33 like evolution is even macro evolution
1:30:37 and you're using you again conflating
1:30:40 evolution with Darwinian evolution if I
1:30:42 asked you to know do you never like you
1:30:43 into the or misinterpret if you believe
1:30:45 in the monkey evolution no all right I
1:30:48 never drop you guys now we went for
1:30:50 going somewhere else and you'll get a
1:30:52 lot more chances to talk in a few
1:30:54 minutes we're going to take a five-ish
1:30:56 let's see what time is it on my
1:30:59 smartphone is 807 so let's meet back
1:31:02 here at 8:15 and we're going to give you
1:31:04 guys a voice by reading some of your
1:31:05 questions and letting them for fun thank
1:31:07 you I need to find a coconut oil hi I
1:31:14 might PhD a discontented might be
1:31:18 related and what's really interesting
1:31:22 are he was talking about Mary and Mavis
1:31:25 advisor for a professor in my department
1:31:27 and the thing that he says about
1:31:29 Darwinian evolution is that he thinks
1:31:32 that natural selection exists to
1:31:35 eliminate deleterious genotype that's
1:31:38 what he's actually saying are you saying
1:31:39 that my opponent is quoting from
1:31:41 scientism when he doesn't understand
1:31:44 what they're saying
1:31:45 I'm afraid could you tell him that
1:31:48 please I would appreciate it if you
1:31:55 would pour flavors it's very much a
1:31:59 matter of authority so and if he's going
1:32:02 to be citing people you need to know
1:32:03 what they're saying
1:32:05 alright guys I'm going to go ahead and
1:32:07 get us started again even though I still
1:32:09 have it read through all of these
1:32:10 because I'm sure well these guys debate
1:32:12 I can read I'm sure I'll be able to
1:32:14 concentrate on what's in front of me so
1:32:16 let's go ahead and wind down
1:32:18 conversation and we'll get started again
1:32:20 this is where the teacher in the rear
1:32:22 would say claps once if you can hear
1:32:24 this out of my voice
1:32:28 we've got a lot of questions here that
1:32:30 are most of these are directed at one of
1:32:32 the two of these I'm going to try to go
1:32:33 back and forth and I will honor your
1:32:35 time and defend pi9 and several of the
1:32:39 questions are similar so I may lump them
1:32:42 together but we will start with this one
1:32:43 is for the board and the question is and
1:32:47 if I say this incorrectly it's on you
1:32:50 for nothing written clearly since the
1:32:52 best I can do even if we grant your
1:32:54 assertion that Darwinian evolution is
1:32:56 not valid and all life is the result of
1:32:58 a creator what is the basis for assuming
1:33:00 that Allah is this creator instead of
1:33:03 some other God it seems like even if you
1:33:05 could prove evolution with false but
1:33:07 still does not follow the Islam is true
1:33:09 does it okay you're getting I know I'll
1:33:13 try and remember okay so I just wanna
1:33:17 clarify my position I'm not here to show
1:33:20 evolution is wrong evolution as an
1:33:22 observation we can actually see it just
1:33:25 to give you a small beautiful example of
1:33:27 what might be considered a micro
1:33:28 evolution or micro evolution I don't
1:33:31 like using the terms microphone my
1:33:32 protocol discussion about whether we
1:33:33 should use them or not so it's better
1:33:35 just to use evolution simply means
1:33:36 biological change Tree of Life and
1:33:38 natural selection so I have no problem
1:33:42 with evolution I have absolutely no
1:33:44 problem with Darwinian evolution either
1:33:47 it's a working model is working paradigm
1:33:49 is a working theory nobody should ever
1:33:51 get in the way of scientists doing their
1:33:53 work now in regards to an alternative
1:33:56 I'm not here to preach and explained
1:33:59 that since Darwinian evolution is wrong
1:34:02 therefore you know you guys should
1:34:05 basically become Muslim I'm not here to
1:34:08 do that what why I'm here to do is to
1:34:11 say that Darwinian evolution just like
1:34:13 any
1:34:14 other variants science is not absolute
1:34:17 and Darwinian evolution I believe has
1:34:22 been hijacked by some people who want to
1:34:25 turn it into a religion which is the
1:34:26 same simple cause referring to Darwinism
1:34:29 as religion written by Michael ruse use
1:34:31 an atheist and he was also a Darwinist
1:34:33 so it's not a derogatory term I don't
1:34:35 need to insult anyone
1:34:36 and I don't believe it should be turned
1:34:38 into a religion like for example I'm
1:34:40 sure Aaron's aware of Julian Huxley his
1:34:43 book religion without revelation which
1:34:45 was Darwinism right okay that's a good
1:34:49 better that's a really good picture so
1:34:52 I'm not here to do any of those things
1:34:54 I'm simply here to show it is just like
1:34:57 any other theory in science it is not
1:34:59 absolute
1:35:00 that's what if I may address that he
1:35:02 keeps trying to distinguish evolution
1:35:04 and Darwinian evolution as if they're
1:35:05 different but he's accepting the natural
1:35:08 selection which is the Darwinian part
1:35:11 and that's the micro evolution part he
1:35:13 does not know he hasn't recognized still
1:35:15 that he's talking about micro and macro
1:35:17 I don't know why he hasn't piece that
1:35:18 together but we are not talking there's
1:35:20 not a distinction between evolution on
1:35:21 one side and Darwinism on the other
1:35:23 they're winning evolution is the natural
1:35:25 selection thing that's the micro part
1:35:26 you've got it backwards just call it
1:35:28 evolution just notice I just wanted to
1:35:31 clarify that like I mentioned in my talk
1:35:33 previously Vernonia and philosophy or
1:35:37 physiological philosophy decades before
1:35:40 Darwin rather Stalin and John batsey
1:35:42 democ they use evolution in the sense of
1:35:45 biological change over time Darwin came
1:35:48 later so when I am referring to
1:35:50 evolution I'm not referring to natural
1:35:53 selection working at the micro scale I'm
1:35:55 not just referring to that you know Kat
1:35:58 wells must experiment and anything like
1:36:01 that
1:36:01 I'm simply referring to the way was used
1:36:04 previously and still today is still a
1:36:06 valid way of defining it for example the
1:36:11 Athena flea whenever whenever recognizes
1:36:14 a
1:36:15 in the water it grows at helmet and a
1:36:17 tail spike that's evolution there's
1:36:20 nothing wrong with generally believing
1:36:22 in biological change of time now as a
1:36:24 theory I don't use the terms micro and
1:36:27 macro and I believe I am it's not my
1:36:31 territory to decide whether they are
1:36:32 valid terms or not for example that's
1:36:34 where you're describing
1:36:35 for it well for example there's a whole
1:36:38 discussion amongst evolutionary
1:36:39 biologists about whether those terms
1:36:41 should be used or not right
1:36:43 I just keep away cuz it's a bit of a
1:36:45 contentious issue right I do believe in
1:36:48 evolution as an observation as it was
1:36:51 defined before Darwin until today it is
1:36:54 valid what I do not believe is an
1:36:57 observation is the tree of life or the
1:36:59 web of life of the heads of life of the
1:37:01 bush of life and nor do I believe
1:37:02 natural selection working on mutations
1:37:04 being the cause behind all of this is
1:37:07 epistemically the same way as an
1:37:09 observation of the Tofino I just wanted
1:37:12 to clarify go ahead electron to that but
1:37:14 then we're going to get to more tighter
1:37:15 so for the last 20 years I've been
1:37:17 making a challenge that I can prove
1:37:18 evolution to your satisfaction and I've
1:37:21 made this challenge to dozens of people
1:37:24 and to date only one person has actually
1:37:28 taken the challenge and gone to fruition
1:37:30 and the conversation guys though because
1:37:32 there's going to be a series of
1:37:33 questions you have to answer the
1:37:35 questions if you ignore if you
1:37:36 repeatedly ignore I need to read
1:37:37 questions it's default that I'm under no
1:37:39 obligation to proceed any further
1:37:41 there's only been one time that anybody
1:37:43 took that challenge and actually went
1:37:45 through all the questions that person
1:37:47 not only accepted evolution but she
1:37:49 later married me
1:37:53 I was just like I would I would like to
1:37:56 donate if you were wondering so I would
1:38:00 like to wonder and what would it take to
1:38:02 change your mind because it is a fact
1:38:05 and I can prove it but y'all are going
1:38:07 to take that argument till afterwards
1:38:08 but now when I get to everybody's
1:38:10 questions and if we run out I'll let you
1:38:13 spar some more it's on juicy and I think
1:38:16 this is mostly directed to you but I'll
1:38:17 let you take a stab at it how does
1:38:19 evolution reconcile such a useless
1:38:22 genetic mutation such as homosexuality
1:38:25 since that contradicts the quote
1:38:27 survival of the fittest principle
1:38:31 homosexuality might be a reaction to
1:38:34 overpopulation that if there's one of
1:38:36 the mathematical equations on how
1:38:39 homosexuality occurs in any breeding
1:38:41 population of the percentage and
1:38:43 mathematically it works out that if
1:38:45 occur if an organism or fate not was a
1:38:47 collective becomes - volume is for one
1:38:51 group that percentage that are
1:38:53 homosexual will help restrict that
1:38:57 growth alright there's a philosopher of
1:39:04 science called David Steve he's written
1:39:07 a book about it even though he's an
1:39:09 atheist and you know he doesn't believe
1:39:10 in creationism anything like that he
1:39:13 speaks about assumptions or predictions
1:39:16 if the Darwinian paradigm was true
1:39:18 whether those actually confirmed and his
1:39:21 book is called Darwin fairytale and what
1:39:23 he goes through is homosexuality and
1:39:25 other things which for him don't make
1:39:29 sense under his particular worldview now
1:39:33 I'm not here to make any comments
1:39:34 homosexuality at all but what I will say
1:39:36 is I agree with David stove's conclusion
1:39:40 which is the conclusion is I think you
1:39:42 know any rational person can accept
1:39:44 which is Darwin's theory of evolution
1:39:46 even though it's the best thing we
1:39:48 currently have as a paradigm is not true
1:39:50 in an absolute sense that's all I'm
1:39:52 actually here to do now and my position
1:39:54 is echoed by other you know secular
1:39:57 academics it's not some new where you
1:39:59 say you keep saying that but the
1:40:00 citations you bring up don't agree with
1:40:02 you
1:40:03 okay so we don't mean it you think right
1:40:05 now you question all right
1:40:07 that's on you guys this question goes to
1:40:11 support yeah it says at how can you
1:40:14 claim I'm sorry the sentence is funny to
1:40:17 me how can you claim that humans and
1:40:18 mushrooms are so different as to refute
1:40:21 evolution their genetic code is the same
1:40:23 many of their enzymes and structural
1:40:25 proteins or functional substitutes their
1:40:27 organelles are the same their means of
1:40:30 replicating are mechanically related
1:40:32 that sounds interesting
1:40:34 I'll take my so yeah just to go back
1:40:45 nothing I said today about you know the
1:40:48 people are referring to as my
1:40:49 interpretation of what they think the
1:40:52 the question is referring to something
1:40:54 which I mentioned from evolution and
1:40:58 evidence the logic behind the science
1:41:00 and what he basically says there is to
1:41:03 use homology and to say that because
1:41:06 these two things are similar therefore
1:41:08 they must have a common ancestor and
1:41:09 these two things are different so
1:41:11 therefore they do you don't have a
1:41:12 command sister the recall was basically
1:41:15 in the context of you can't say a must
1:41:18 within a probabilistic framework the
1:41:20 probabilistic framework is based upon
1:41:22 assumptions bathing's decomposition with
1:41:24 nine mathematical assumptions plus they
1:41:28 are conceptual problems such as defining
1:41:31 homology in a non-circular way and also
1:41:33 the existence of homo lazy so much
1:41:38 mushrooms are tasty bar I don't I don't
1:41:41 really disagree with and being tasty you
1:41:44 didn't comment on the sex life of
1:41:45 mushrooms but we'll save that for
1:41:47 another night this question forearm it
1:41:49 says what degree of influence by the way
1:41:52 whoever read this question excellent
1:41:54 penmanship what degree of influence to
1:41:57 the alternative to Darwinian evolution
1:41:59 ie the third way hold in the scientific
1:42:02 community are they being seriously
1:42:03 considered by mainstream scientists or
1:42:05 are they quote fringe any really good
1:42:08 and the problem with some of the claims
1:42:10 that the scientists are making us
1:42:12 although there are other there are
1:42:15 are there mechanisms they don't have the
1:42:16 same weight as natural selection does I
1:42:19 mean there's like a niche generation for
1:42:22 example in construction these
1:42:24 construction thank you these are well
1:42:27 that while they are factors in you know
1:42:29 the development of life or the evolution
1:42:30 of life they're not necessarily the type
1:42:32 of mechanism that they're playing them
1:42:34 out to be they certainly aren't a
1:42:36 challenge so there's nothing that
1:42:38 anybody is bringing up as far as the new
1:42:40 mechanisms as they want to purport that
1:42:41 actually displaces of natural selection
1:42:45 certainly nothing that that disproves
1:42:47 natural selection everything they
1:42:49 suggest is actually concordant with what
1:42:50 we already know this is just additional
1:42:52 information at best nobody's come up
1:42:56 with a third way that disproves or
1:42:58 discards the prager ways and I don't
1:43:01 know what they mean by the third way and
1:43:03 the reason I have to question what he's
1:43:04 saying when he brings up these things
1:43:06 and I don't know it because he mentioned
1:43:07 something in his video about the people
1:43:09 comparing the genome in human DNA and
1:43:12 all that I had to get a geneticist
1:43:15 friend of mine to find out what paper he
1:43:16 was citing right and then look it up so
1:43:18 I've got a professional geneticist who's
1:43:20 reading this who says I don't know what
1:43:21 this guy is talking about what at one
1:43:23 point three billion letters they ignored
1:43:24 it where does it say that so we're both
1:43:26 reading through it and neither one of us
1:43:28 could glean from it what you did so this
1:43:31 is why I'm convinced that you simply
1:43:32 don't understand the arguments that
1:43:34 you're reading okay to to quickening
1:43:37 within one I'm going to go see
1:43:39 alternatives and this or that so number
1:43:42 one in regards to that paper itself is
1:43:44 on the video which is this - there's two
1:43:49 particular papers I cited one was that
1:43:52 paper from nature which title I don't
1:43:53 remember but in their YouTube videos
1:43:55 embedded in there the second ones the
1:43:57 relative difference is a little 1% and
1:43:59 John Calvin and other evolutionary
1:44:03 biologists they're speaking about the 1%
1:44:05 is a gross oversimplification and they
1:44:11 currently don't know enough to work out
1:44:13 percentages now that's their view
1:44:14 marketers also trying to do two things
1:44:16 now in regards to niche construction
1:44:19 it's not an alternative right I believe
1:44:23 it can
1:44:24 the book that was just recently
1:44:26 published by Princeton and what they
1:44:27 said is these are the people who are
1:44:30 putting forth these construction as a as
1:44:34 a theory and they have found a way of
1:44:36 incorporating it within Darwinism I de
1:44:40 niro Darwin as a mechanism so that's not
1:44:42 a problem but the other the Third Way of
1:44:45 evolution guys like okay the question is
1:44:48 are they fringe okay two things here
1:44:51 number one if they are fringe Darwin at
1:44:53 one point was fringe I you became
1:44:55 mainstream to one of the people that's
1:44:58 on here is Carlos who's published papers
1:45:02 you can find on the third way of
1:45:03 evolution Oakland and he discovered the
1:45:05 third domain of life archaea so even if
1:45:09 they were French and they're not frankly
1:45:11 it would be irrelevant because let us
1:45:13 assume there was no alternative let's
1:45:15 just this is golda let's assume there
1:45:17 was no alternative and you know these
1:45:19 guys from Oxford MIT Princeton Harvard
1:45:21 and Oxford in whatever right they were
1:45:24 there even in that case according to
1:45:27 philosophers of science there are
1:45:28 alternatives to our best theories
1:45:31 equally well confirmed by the evidence
1:45:33 even when we even if we are unable to
1:45:36 conceive of them at the time it is what
1:45:37 Kyle Stanford has lost well science says
1:45:39 and he's an atheist and you know doesn't
1:45:42 have any sort of religious bias so this
1:45:44 is main stream understanding of
1:45:47 philosophy of science yes the views of
1:45:49 evolutionary biology that I was
1:45:50 referring to or number one I don't
1:45:53 endorse them to I do agree they're not
1:45:54 means they're not like there may be main
1:45:56 screen bondage is pushing it as in terms
1:45:58 of sexual apologists but they haven't
1:46:01 become guarantee and a foothold in the
1:46:03 scientific community the reason why I
1:46:04 raised them is not I endorsed them is to
1:46:07 show there is a discussion going on you
1:46:10 call the discussion exists because they
1:46:12 obviously understand it's not absolute
1:46:14 then help when there's no other site
1:46:16 there's not even their understanding so
1:46:18 on the concept of niche construction
1:46:22 how would that impugn or how with that
1:46:26 challenge
1:46:27 natural selection it doesn't thank you
1:46:30 no no not anything again when it does
1:46:33 well that's the whole problem with
1:46:35 this Third Way is every one of these
1:46:37 American iron isn't really agenda in
1:46:39 general just a second that I mentioned
1:46:42 at the beginning that's what the book
1:46:43 says you when you mention these
1:46:45 constructions niche consumption is not
1:46:47 an alternative but they found a way of
1:46:49 incorporating it within the current
1:46:51 matter is discussed our paradigm the
1:46:54 other mechanisms they haven't and the
1:46:56 people proposing the mechanisms such as
1:46:59 James Shapiro they do not believe that
1:47:02 Darwinism has any hope in terms of its
1:47:04 mechanism you have to be really specific
1:47:06 about that because I've heard these
1:47:07 arguments and have read these arguments
1:47:09 that these people are making and a lot
1:47:11 of I just don't have the substance for
1:47:12 the very reason you've just Illustrated
1:47:14 yourself that means construction has
1:47:16 nothing to say against natural selection
1:47:19 why don't you saw an alternative I never
1:47:21 mentioned as an alternative Island chose
1:47:22 that I know what you're not saying yeah
1:47:24 okay but it is giving a case of any of
1:47:28 these other mechanisms as they want to
1:47:30 bring up there's nothing that actually
1:47:31 challenges or replaces what we already
1:47:33 know it just adds to it that's it so why
1:47:35 would you come up with a third way
1:47:37 that's just it you wouldn't okay no has
1:47:40 you already accepted natural selection
1:47:41 exam you graduated just answer the
1:47:44 question that came in that was a bit of
1:47:46 question just to be fair there but again
1:47:49 barring later let's the after party and
1:47:52 this question is for sabor it says do
1:47:54 you believe in multiple episodes of
1:47:56 creation if not how do you account for
1:47:59 only primitive organisms in the earliest
1:48:01 fossils people screams do you believe in
1:48:04 multiple episodes of creation if not how
1:48:07 do you account for only primitive
1:48:08 organisms in the earliest fossils okay
1:48:12 take a look at I'm guessing it it's
1:48:14 referring to multiple origins here they
1:48:18 are loads of possible creation scenarios
1:48:22 right and I'm not endorsing one
1:48:25 particular one
1:48:26 okay cuz as a Muslim when it comes to
1:48:29 the creation story we don't have a mean
1:48:35 we don't have this belief which is in
1:48:37 the Bible that they are separate kinds
1:48:39 and you know these kinds are
1:48:41 unchangeable it's actually like their
1:48:43 silence and even when I try to look up
1:48:45 what was the date
1:48:48 you know when do we as Muslims believed
1:48:50 there was the first atom basically the
1:48:54 first human what I got was there is no
1:48:57 dead end okay what about Homo erectus
1:48:59 Homo Naledi and these things and the
1:49:02 answer I got was okay
1:49:04 other things existed and then the other
1:49:07 was created separately now just two on
1:49:10 this issue of creation there's a book
1:49:12 called the Padma Purana which is a 3,000
1:49:17 year old Hindu text right and in this
1:49:21 book it gives a very clear picture of
1:49:26 the creation of life being like a tree
1:49:29 of life identical in not it's details by
1:49:34 its structure of Darwin's Tree of Life
1:49:39 and I'll basically professor of Sanskrit
1:49:42 Oxford University Manya Williams he
1:49:47 basically explains that the Hindus were
1:49:49 Darwinists centuries before Darwin in
1:49:51 regards to their sort of thing
1:49:54 so who whoever comes up with a creation
1:49:58 story of some kind
1:50:00 and what I'm using creation very vaguely
1:50:02 here right cuz even if you don't believe
1:50:04 in God he still believe that things
1:50:06 existed in creation right it doesn't
1:50:08 matter where it came from because just
1:50:11 to disprove from where it came from
1:50:13 would be the genetic fallacy we have a
1:50:15 very clear description of the tree of
1:50:17 life in the bottom-up knowledge of 3,000
1:50:19 years old but it would be ridiculous to
1:50:21 need to sit here and say because it's in
1:50:24 that ancient book and then Darwin later
1:50:28 adopted a and his grandfather Erasmus
1:50:31 Darwin wrote about practice or gradual
1:50:34 beginning in zou Narnia it you can't
1:50:37 shoot idea down where because of where
1:50:39 it comes from
1:50:40 if you see my point you have to look at
1:50:43 the validity of the idea itself and the
1:50:45 reason why I speak about the mechanism
1:50:47 is if the mechanism fails then the
1:50:50 history of life too fails because the
1:50:52 Tree of Life idea existed prior to
1:50:55 Darwin and it came down to the Greek
1:50:57 philosophers and
1:50:58 they came down to the enlightenment and
1:51:00 he was well-known as an idea before
1:51:04 Darwin Darwin came along and he filled
1:51:06 the gap which was a mechanism by which
1:51:07 it happened natural selection works in
1:51:09 all variations hence why there's so much
1:51:11 controversy when you bring up problems
1:51:14 with the mechanism but I just want to
1:51:15 reiterate this one last point again and
1:51:16 again
1:51:17 I don't endorse any of those
1:51:19 alternatives I was just showing them as
1:51:21 the fact that there exists a
1:51:24 disagreement about some of the core
1:51:27 ideas of dominance
1:51:28 I just wanna mention yes it's a piranha
1:51:31 I'm pretty sure that's the right one I
1:51:34 don't like I don't have batteries on
1:51:35 here to check it but pretty sure the
1:51:37 Piranha was contextually dated into
1:51:39 about 2600 years or so it can't be 3000
1:51:42 years because it mentions Buddha and it
1:51:44 says that Buddha was an incarnation of
1:51:47 Vishnu and that he appeared in his guise
1:51:50 to delude the atheists but
1:51:53 simultaneously it also contextually
1:51:56 dated to Rome 2600 years ago as the
1:51:58 Bhagavad Gita which in which Krishna
1:52:01 complains about demonic people who
1:52:05 believe that the biodiversity comes only
1:52:07 from cohabitation and lust no more than
1:52:10 this different species breed themselves
1:52:13 we're supposed to read it I don't
1:52:14 remember the exact quote that's
1:52:16 basically what says I wish I could think
1:52:18 of a clever segue from that and this
1:52:21 question it doesn't say good for but I'm
1:52:23 gathering it for you and that is what it
1:52:25 says changes in organisms are apparent
1:52:27 even interest species mutations can be
1:52:30 observed over time but we've never seen
1:52:32 a transition from one species to another
1:52:34 and then in parentheses fish to cow
1:52:36 let's say doesn't it take half doesn't
1:52:39 it take space to accept that Darwinian
1:52:41 evolution something we've never observed
1:52:43 is true my book lists dozens of observed
1:52:50 speciation events we have seen the
1:52:54 emergence of new species how is not a
1:52:57 species just to give you a Takei
1:53:03 Lobos what was the example given here a
1:53:05 fish to cow we actually have for
1:53:08 paleontology we actually show this one
1:53:10 because we do have quite a fluid
1:53:12 transition into tetrapods and we go a
1:53:14 long way before we get into cattle and
1:53:16 then cows and things like that but yes
1:53:18 we have observed the origin of new
1:53:20 species or divergence of new species
1:53:24 basically doesn't it takes faith to be a
1:53:27 Darwinian ya know any belief that we I'm
1:53:31 an eminent scientist I'm also in a
1:53:33 pissed abyss and at this service is
1:53:34 somebody rejects faith as being the most
1:53:36 dishonest opposition it is possible to
1:53:38 have any any belief that requires faith
1:53:40 should be rejected for that reason okay
1:53:43 just want to make a quick point about
1:53:46 changes in the species that is a few
1:53:50 missus species that secure answering
1:53:51 this question that the current fish I
1:53:55 would say I'm guessing you're a
1:53:58 Christian have asked this question I
1:54:00 would say look scientists they have this
1:54:04 working paradigm right dot the Darwinian
1:54:07 evolution right leave you alone as a
1:54:09 paradigm leave you alone as a theory
1:54:10 let them do their work there's no reason
1:54:12 to bring your theology or even me as
1:54:14 Muslim my theology and try and challenge
1:54:16 scientists but just on this particular
1:54:17 question there's 26 different
1:54:20 definitions of species right and it's
1:54:24 not as simple as oh you know yeah you
1:54:27 work with this species you know we
1:54:30 worked out this is related to that even
1:54:33 though there's a mechanism and there's
1:54:34 an exploit true power behind the
1:54:36 mechanism theoretically something could
1:54:39 be but it doesn't mean it was there's a
1:54:42 difference theoretically it could be so
1:54:44 for example how did this thing go oh it
1:54:47 could have been it doesn't mean it
1:54:48 actually that's actually the way it
1:54:50 happened so I think it's very important
1:54:53 to solve make a distinction in those
1:54:56 things and lastly I'd like to ask this
1:54:57 question say the fish did lead to the
1:55:00 cow how on earth would that change your
1:55:02 belief or your faith on a nail okay is
1:55:06 there a link between the fish and the
1:55:07 country you shouldn't I mean I'm a
1:55:10 strong believer like professor
1:55:12 Alister McGrath the Oxford University
1:55:15 who's a Christian theologian former
1:55:16 atheist and he basically says look let
1:55:19 the scientist do their work okay I don't
1:55:21 believe in it and I you know it things
1:55:23 can change but let them do the work
1:55:24 don't get involved in these you know
1:55:26 crazy creation science type things which
1:55:29 actually hinder the progress of science
1:55:31 let it be as a paradigm let it be as a
1:55:33 model let it be as a theory let them do
1:55:35 their work because IBM Thursday what
1:55:37 they're doing is saving lives something
1:55:40 that for example in the Quran it says
1:55:41 whoever they say saves the life of one
1:55:43 human being saves the lives of all which
1:55:45 is also in the Torah the Old Testament
1:55:47 so let the scientists do their work
1:55:49 don't bring theology into I'm a strong
1:55:53 believer in them so since we have the
1:55:54 creation is defending evolution let the
1:55:56 atheists also defend Christianity for a
1:55:59 moment just in music I'll allow it
1:56:03 it is possible to interpret the Bible
1:56:06 when it says that God said let the earth
1:56:08 bring forth read it literally alright I
1:56:15 was trying to think if we could squeeze
1:56:17 two questions in but I think you guys
1:56:20 approve we cannot I'm going to do one
1:56:22 more question because I've been told
1:56:24 that we actually need to end by 8:45 so
1:56:27 you guys can actually be gone by 9:00
1:56:29 and so this question just says what is
1:56:32 the most important point you want to
1:56:34 make so this is a freebie you can each
1:56:36 end on one point that you most want to
1:56:39 have the audience here before we leave
1:56:41 and I didn't make this up this is a real
1:56:43 card there's the one point the most
1:56:45 important point you want to make well if
1:56:49 you're going to me first it is you know
1:56:51 the fact the data that can be confirmed
1:56:54 that there's something that we can show
1:56:55 to be true it's not assumption so
1:56:56 certainly damn sure isn't speculation we
1:56:59 have ways we can show this and we can
1:57:00 prove it we can verify it and I'd be
1:57:02 happy to do that for you but of course
1:57:04 it's going to take some time to work it
1:57:05 out and I would rather do that in a
1:57:07 written format because then we can
1:57:09 compare data and you know show links and
1:57:11 so forth but it would it would be just
1:57:13 that this is not faith this is not a
1:57:16 religious position this is something we
1:57:18 know and can show any right
1:57:24 the most important thing I'd like to say
1:57:26 is that whenever there is a paradigm
1:57:30 that exists in science it doesn't mean
1:57:35 that that paradigm is absolutely is true
1:57:36 enough in an absolute sense the
1:57:39 philosopher of science and
1:57:40 astrophysicists Thomas Cooney wrote the
1:57:43 structure of scientific revolutions and
1:57:45 he speaks about how there was major
1:57:47 paradigm shifts and the history of
1:57:49 science science shows the major paradigm
1:57:52 shifts for example from the classical
1:57:54 Newtonian worldview to the quantum and
1:57:58 the relativistic worldview in which what
1:58:01 happened and I want you guys to be like
1:58:02 this what happened 200 years we had
1:58:05 Newtonian predictions precisely this
1:58:08 planning is going to be in this place at
1:58:10 this particular motion on this day and
1:58:12 it was there but the fundamental
1:58:14 assumptions of that world of that
1:58:17 paradigm turned out to be false
1:58:19 according to today's paradigm
1:58:21 relativistic paradigm which is time and
1:58:23 space are fixed now there seem to be
1:58:26 dynamic there is the definition of mass
1:58:30 itself changed gravity is no longer a
1:58:34 pulling force is actually space-time
1:58:36 curvature and it's a pushing force look
1:58:39 at those conceptual changes and
1:58:41 according to some evolutionary
1:58:44 biologists like James Shapiro biology is
1:58:48 going through a similar conceptual
1:58:50 revolution so just because and even if
1:58:54 it was even if it wasn't a few Darwinian
1:58:56 evolution as a paradigm is going to
1:58:59 exist for the next thousand years
1:59:00 there's no reason for any person Muslim
1:59:03 Christian atheist to attach it as a
1:59:06 scientific theory let the scientists do
1:59:08 their work just don't turn it into a
1:59:10 religion which is something I believe
1:59:11 has happened to Darwinism it has been
1:59:16 hijacked the theory itself has been
1:59:17 hijacked by some people like Richard
1:59:20 Dawkins who says Darwin allowed him to
1:59:22 be an intellectually satisfied agency
1:59:23 says this in the blind watchmaker I
1:59:25 don't think he should use his position
1:59:28 in science you propagate his belief
1:59:30 which by the way that bore no
1:59:32 resemblance to of a good
1:59:35 what way you just described with
1:59:37 audience that born of being
1:59:40 intellectually satisfied just means you
1:59:42 know that you're justified whatever you
1:59:43 believe you believe for reasons right
1:59:46 not faith reasons that mean it not
1:59:48 religion okay Darwinism as religion the
1:59:51 book I was referring to it speaks about
1:59:54 yes it gives them that intellectual
1:59:57 transaction Darwinism but should it lead
2:00:01 them to be convinced of atheism and as
2:00:04 you in your book the first foundational
2:00:06 falsehood which I agree with you Pacific
2:00:09 and also I read the part France your
2:00:11 neighbor couldn't get that right by
2:00:13 inning the first foundational falsehood
2:00:15 I agree with you why wait evolution with
2:00:17 atheism so that's why we can agree about
2:00:21 it shouldn't be turned into a button to
2:00:23 bash the religious people evolution
2:00:26 equals evolution it doesn't equal a
2:00:28 person all right I'm gonna wrap it up on
2:00:31 that note and thank you guys both for
2:00:33 coming and for being gracious courts and
2:00:35 I didn't have to break any to this site
2:00:37 okay so thank you all for coming to do
2:00:39 any closing remarks six
2:00:44 yeah just thanks to everybody for coming
2:00:46 thank you very much the birth of our
2:00:48 debate participants and those laws