Channel: Mohammed Hijab
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
All right. Welcome, everybody. Thanks to everybody for coming out tonight. Good to see you all here just a little bit. Try to keep the opening announcements brief so we can get to debate as quickly as possible. But just a little bit about our organization. My name is Vic Wang. And I am the president of humanistic Houston. And we are a 501 c three nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting principles of secular humanism, throughout Houston. And so we do all kinds of events. We do guest speakers, debates such as this, we have discussion groups, we do volunteer outings of various charities, and we do activism. And we also just do social events as well. So if you're not on
meetup, please join the meetup group.
Which is actually, we're actually the largest Meetup group. We're the largest chapter of the American Humanist Association in the country and the largest humanists Meetup group in the world. And actually, in fact, we just surpassed today, we're actually now the largest
out of any humanist atheist or skeptic Meetup group in the world. We're actually now number one, we just took that over today. So
3106 last, I look so.
Yeah. So yeah, please join us out there on meetup and then you can see our full calendar of events, RSVP for events, and get reminders and whatnot. For all the different activities we have going on, which is typically about we average about 20 plus events per month. So
and yeah, as far as today, so
very proud to host this debate, which has been kind of a long time in the making, it's kind of fortuitous that they were able to
meet here in Houston to hold this debate, since neither of neither of them lives here in Houston, Rn is in Dallas, while Mr. Alot is in the UK. So just so happened, we could get both of them here today to hold this event, which is going to be a debate on evolution specifically, is Darwinian evolution, in fact.
Mr. Awad will actually be taking the position, the affirmative position that it is not a fact and this will be going first,
I will just a reminder, also that we have questions as well, we have postcards, index cards, I should say, in each chair, as well as pens, if you don't have one, just raise your hand and someone can bring you on. Those will be for the questions. We're going to do all the questions in written form today. So feel free to submit your question at any time, just raise your hand and
then somebody will come and pick it up, either. Robert, over here, or Kathy over here will come pick it up. And then we will make select questions. Hopefully we'll have time for all, but
if not, we'll our moderator who will be introducing shortly will make the selections on which
questions to select. We do ask everybody, of course to remain
quiet and civil throughout the debate. Please be respectful of both of the
in moderator. And please no outbursts. Oh, and also, again, there's snacks in the back, feel free to help yourselves get some cookies and candy back there. And restrooms. And waterfowl are out in the hallway back there. So
yeah, one thing we wanted to really try to do is make this debate as neutral as possible and as fair as possible. So hence, we're holding it in a neutral venue and we went out of our way to try to find thanks to interfaith ministries of Greater Houston.
They were able to find our moderator for this event who's a Christian. So we did want to make sure we did not have our moderator was neither neither an atheist nor a Muslim, to try to keep things things fair. So I'll go ahead and introduce our moderator for this evening. Who is Sarah stone, and Sarah is the director of singles and young adults at Memorial dry Presbyterian Church, and a single mother of two. She completed a master's in counseling psychology at Trinity Trinity evangelical Divinity School in Chicago, and practice family and couples therapy, couples therapy before moving to Texas. As an energetic extrovert with a passion for singles and young adults. She gets excited
about building community event planning, counseling and discipleship. In her free time you'll find Sarah exploring Houston's newest foodie spots playing the guitar or dancing the night away. So please welcome our moderator to the stage.
Well, thank you so much for having me, this is tall, let's make it a little shorter.
Thank you so much for having me. This is my first time doing anything with the humanists of Houston, I'm excited. When he asked me for my bio, I sent him what's on our church website, and it has all this stuff at the end about what I do in my free time. And then I read their bios, and they were very scholarly and serious. So I think when you guys get up, you should tell us what you do when you're not debating, do enjoy long walks on the beach, or, you know, make it your own. But yes, we're going to be having 20 minutes dedicated to each of our speakers, while they'll get up and begin. And then we're going to give them each 10 minutes for rebuttal. And then we're going to spend
another 20 minutes letting them just kind of have a one on one discussion. And I think my job in the middle is just to make sure to come to fifth or get crazy.
After that, we'll take a short break. And all that time, hopefully your writing questions, we'll take a look at those questions and come back to do a q&a time, which I'm really excited about. I'm excited about the whole thing I'm looking forward to learning. But let me introduce our first guest suborn mod. He's the former head of mission of Dharma and an instructor and lecturer of the Islamic education and research Academy, which is an Islamic missionary group. He is a student of Islamic thought and studied the philosophy of biology has previously studied engineering at City University of London. Singapore has produced several videos promoting Islam on the YouTube channel of the
London Dawa movement, which he is the head of as well as videos critical of evolution at the Darwinian delusions YouTube channel. So please welcome Mr. Love.
This is just it. Yeah. Yeah.
cash offer man.
Welcome. So I'm going to begin as Muslims do in the Name of God, the Lord of mercy, the giver of mercy. Now, the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said I think something we can all pretty much agree with. If we believe in God that is that if you're not grateful to people, you're not grateful to God. So the first thing I'd like to do is to thank Aaron and the humanist society for facilitating this discussion. And as a gift as a gesture of my gratefulness. I have bought fossilize a family of fossilized baby trilobites from Wales as a gift for you guys. And because there's one thing we can all agree about as Christians, Muslims, Jews, humanists, and nonhumans amongst us if
there's any, it's not.
Nature is full of wonders. I'm sure I'm sure we can all agree with that. So question tonight is Darwinian evolution a fact? Now it's very important before we get into a discussion, you define what you mean. So what I mean by fact is something which is certain something which is absolute, something that does not change. Now, I don't have any issue and no one should have an issue calling Darwinian evolution, a working model, or working paradigm, and working theory, but not a fact. Now, it's also important define what a theory is. And this is what Aaron says, and I'm just going to plug his book here, foundational falsehoods of creationism. He says, theory is the highest level of
confidence science can get. A theory is a field of study and a body of knowledge enveloping a collection of facts, hypotheses and natural laws. Now, I generally think that's, that's okay to use as a definition. And the reason why I believe Darwinian evolution is not a fact is because scientific theories are not absolute. Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory, therefore, Darwinian evolution is not. Therefore, Darwinian evolution is not absolute. And the only people I'm gonna be referring to today are mainstream secular academics, mainstream philosophers of science and mainstream evolutionary biologists. I'm also going to be making the case that Darwinian evolution is
not a fact, but also that it is speculative, based on assumptions and these disputes about its most fundamental ideas. And I think one of the reasons why some people they think Darwinian evolution is a fact is because of their misunderstanding of what science can achieve. And I believe Aaron has that misunderstanding. He says in one of his videos, understand that all of Sciences revisable doesn't mean conclusions can change, just that they can be revised. And this is the polar opposite of what evolutionary biologists Henry key, who's also the senior editor of the most prestigious journal in the world, nature has to say about science. He says, conclusions can change conclusions
can be wrong, and science can only ever give you provisional conclusions. So how do we decide between two polar views here?
What we have to do is we have to look at the philosophy of science. The philosophy of science teaches us that based upon a limited set of observations, scientists make a general conclusion a general inference a general theory. Now there's two particular issues here. Firstly, you can always get novel observations, meaning observations which challenge your previous theories. Secondly, the same observations can be used to come up with multiple theories. So because of these two reasons, in the philosophy of science, conclusions can change and theories are not absolute. So Aaron, I believe is out of line when it comes to mainstream philosophers of science. And this is what it says in
philosophy of science, a new introduction by Oxford University, talk of scientific proof is dangerous, because the term fosters the idea of conclusions that are graven in stone. So Henry D is correct. And he is in line with philosophers of science, when he says, conclusions can be wrong, conclusions can change, conclusions are always provisional. Now, somebody can come along and say, Wait, Darwinian evolution has been so successful, is given us so many predictions, which have been confirmed, it's, it's got to be true. Well, just here at the University of Texas, we have a philosopher of science, Larry loden. And he's put together a philosophical paper, where he puts
together 30 scientific theories, which were empirically quite successful, but which turned out to be false. And this is a well known understood thing in the philosophy of science, no matter how successful his theory is, it doesn't mean it won't change, it doesn't mean it is a fact in the absolute sense. But this is what it says in the philosophy of science, a very short introduction, again, by Oxford University. Historically, there are many cases of theories that we now believe to be false, that will empirically quite successful. So clearly, no matter how successful the theory is, it doesn't mean you can call it an absolute. Also, somebody can say there is no alternative when
it comes to the history of evolution, other than the Darwinian paradigm. Well, let's just take that at face value, let's just say there is no alternative. When it comes to the Darwinian picture of life, it still doesn't mean that it is absolute. This is what the philosophy of science called Stanford explains, there are alternatives to our best theories, equally well confirmed by the evidence, even when we even when we are unable to conceive of them at the time. And somebody else can also make a claim, there is a complete consensus amongst all evolutionary biologists that Darwinian evolution is largely correct. Now, again, I'm going to take this at face value. Let's just
assume every single evolutionary biologist from the time of Darwin till today believes Darwinian evolution is correct, it still doesn't mean it is an absolute, because we can have paradigm shifts in science. So a complete consensus is still based on a conclusion, which is provisional. This is what it says in evidence in evolution published by Cambridge University, the best that scientists can do at any time. This is the absolute best they can do is to render comparative judgment between theories. But there is something Aaron is correct upon. He says, 100 years ago, we had the theories of evolution, gravity, atomic theory, cell theory, and the germ theory of disease, all these things,
all these fields have improved since then, but we're still focused on the fact of evolution, gravity cells and germs. So I totally agree that there always will be a theory of evolution. And I'm going to be explaining what I mean by evolution, I think we need to define those terms as well. So just to summarize, observations are facts, theories are not facts, although they based on observations as per Aaron's previous definition, in his book, which I agree with, because of two particular issues, multiple theories based upon the same observations, and secondly, novel observations that can challenge your previous conclusions. So philosophy of science, philosophy of science teaches,
theories are not absolute. Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory, therefore, Darwinian evolution is not absolute. And it's also very important at this moment, to define the difference between Darwinian evolution and evolution. Evolution simply is an observation of biological change. From that perspective, it is an absolute fact. But it doesn't mean the tree of life or natural selection being the cause behind the tree of life is an absolute fact. Darwinian evolution is different to evolution. In eunomia, which was written by Erasmus, Darwin, Darwin's grandfather, he uses evolution in that particular sense. In fact, in one sentence of that book, he uses evolution in
a sense, which is non Darwinian, rapid saltation of evolution. Secondly, in zoological philosophy by john Bach, perhaps the Lamarck who came up with his lamarckian evolution, decades before Darwin, he also uses evolution in that general sense of biological change.
So from that perspective, it is an observation. Now lamarckian evolution existed some decades before Darwin, and there's two particular parts to the market evolution. Number one, there was a history of evolution, which was represented by the push of life, a number have multiple number of origins, parallel lines of evolution, organisms going from simple to more complex is like written within them to get more and more complex. Secondly, the mechanism by which that happened was the inheritance of acquired characteristics, Darwinism, likewise Darwinian evolution. Darwin came along about 50 years after Lamarck, and he put together his own theory of evolution, which also had two parts. One was a
history of evolution represented by the tree of life. And secondly, was natural selection, working on variations later on, they call the mutations but the same thing. This is what the philosophy of science Jerry Fodor explains, Darwin's theory of evolution has two parts. One is his familiar historical account of our phylogeny, the universal common ancestry tree of life. The other is this theory of natural selection. So I hope that is clear evolution, Darwinian evolution, and lamarckian evolution, because if you, if you actually conflate them, it can create multiple levels of confusion. Now, in one of his comments, Aaron said, Why are we even bothering with the superflous
labels of Darwinian natural and sexual selection versus Neo Darwinian selection plus genetics? Just call it evolution, that's what it is. I'm going to make the case that we shouldn't call Darwinian evolution, or Neo Darwinian evolution just call it evolution, because it creates confusion. For example, we know that bacteria mutates This is a clear cut evolution observation, we have observed this in the lab. Now, because that is true. Does that mean the Tree of Life is true? Does that mean natural selection working on variations is the cause behind all that? And if we were to equate evolution with lamarckian evolution, does that mean the bush of life is true? Does that mean the
inheritance of acquired characteristics is true? Of course not, we need to use our terms carefully. So when you're referring to the history of life, just call it the Tree of Life, or universal common ancestry? When you're referring to the mechanism of evolution, just call it natural selection. Evolution simply means biological change over time, and it is a observation and it is absolutely true. Okay. I'm also going to be making the case that Darwinian evolution is speculative based on assumptions, and there's disputes about its most fundamental ideas. Now, why is Darwinian evolution speculative, for two reasons. Number one is reconstructing the evolutionary history of life on earth
is very difficult. Number one, we're speaking about something that has taken place over an incredibly long period of time, something like 4 billion years. Now, it's very difficult to try and reconstruct something that happened that long ago. And in the Journal of theoretical biology, there's a paper called testing the hypothesis of common ancestry, there's actually a section dedicated to why it's difficult to work out what happened in the past. And that's actually what they conclude. Secondly, we're talking about an incredibly large data set, according to a National Science Foundation, 99.999% of species are observed, not organisms, species on observed. So whatever
you try and make up it is bound to be speculative. And this was a study that was just published in May, this year. So whether you try and come up with the universal common ancestry tree of life, or you try and come up with like a lamarckian, multiple origins, Bush of life, or you try and come up with what some evolutionary biologists are referring to as the web of life or the nature of life, or you believe in gradual evolution, which is, you know, Neo Darwinism, or you believe in rapidssl rotational processes, or you believe in progression, or non progression, either way, is an open season on the historical record of life on Earth, simply because so much of the data is missing. And
also because we're speaking about something that happened a long time ago. Now in science, it gives the analogy of working out the history of evolution in the following way. It is like trying to work out and I want to use an example here isn't big enough. Okay. It's like trying to work out the plot of Leo Tolstoy's war and peace. This is, by the way, with 13 randomly selected pages. Right. Now imagine if you had that book, how many different plots theories ideas could you put together? If you only had 13? randomly selected pages and all the rest of the pages are missing? Multiple. So why is it that we're sometimes told by people who should know better that the Darwinian picture is the only
and in his book,
foundational forces of creation really promoting your book.
It is a fact it is what Iran says it is a fact that everything on Earth has definitive relatives, either living nearby or evidence in the fossil record. And in a video he goes further,
it would be perverse to say taxonomical classification are a fantastically improbable accident of coincidence, that would be a statistical impossibility, which reaches into the realm of reality denial, it is an absolute fact. Now, he's clearly out of line with mainstream evolutionary biology. Just to give you an example,
he has continued to long term multiple papers, there's a paper called a formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry published in Nature. And this is what it says in the abstract. And I want you to put the words absolute fact and reality denial denial here, which is what Aaron said, and put the words that they are saying on the other side, although universal common ancestry is widely assumed.
He has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing. And this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically invalid evaluating a theory have such a broad scope. And clearly, no words like absolute fact no words like reality denial. Secondly, Darwinian evolution is based upon assumptions and some of these assumptions are being challenged by evolutionary biologists, for example, genes trans ion are transmitted vertically, we've discovered the process of horizontal gene transfer recently, the idea of gradualism, some evolutionary biologists believe in rapidssl, rotational processes, the Tree of Life, some biologists are speaking
about the web of life, you'll find this all over the place. Now, inheritance of acquired characteristics are impossible. Just read The Selfish Gene, you know, 1980s edition, it clearly mentions it is impossible to inherit acquired characteristics. This is classical Neo Darwinism. And now we've actually observed this and this is published in mainstream journals, mutations are random. Other biologists disagree, they believe mutations are directed, I'm going to explain what that means in a minute.
According to the Oxford University biologist, Dennis noble, all the central assumptions of Neo Darwinism have been disproven. Now, by the way, just a small caveat. I don't agree with anything that these guys are saying. I'm not taking a position. I'm not saying what Dennis noble said is right. And I'm not saying that evolutionary biologists have the different views. All right, that is ascribed to those views, I'm just showing you a difference of an opinion of opinion. Lastly, there are disputes. Now, if Darwinian evolution was absolutely true, these books would not exist. Now. I'm just going to explain each one of them right. So evolution by natural genetic engineering is a total
alternative to the Darwinian mechanism. It proposes external factors activate genome change operators in English, that basically means mutations are not random, they are directed. And in evolutionary view from the 21st century, it mentions a whole new alternative to Neo Darwinism and just one of the one of the people who actually support just to give you an idea of the soil scientists who are behind this is called was the guy who discovered the third domain of life right? I mean, evolutionary biologists are that important, are looking into alternatives. Secondly, neo lamarckian evolution now proponents argue inheritance of acquired characteristics drive rapid
evolutionary change in English, that basically means, you know, that giraffe with his long neck, you know, developed characteristics can be inherited, and changes are fast, right? And they again challenge the idea of gradualism. Now, this is a book written by Elijah Blanca illusion bondages transformations. lamarckism is a complete alternative on knee on the Neo Darwinian mechanism. This is published by MIT University. So clearly the you know, if Aaron's correct then reality denial and absolute factoring, these guys don't seem to be agreeing with him that now the last one and I think this is quite an interesting one. This is actually referred to as the Forgotten synthesis mean
delian mutation ism. Right. So this challenge is the idea of gradualism. A argues evolution takes place a place in rapid steps, by large mutations. Right. Now, this is a book published by Masatoshi Nye, I was getting the name wrong. So to read it from here, mutation driven evolution published by Oxford University, and he gives a complete alternative to the Darwinian mechanism. Now, they're not challenging the Darwinian history of life. They're, they're challenging the Darwinian mechanism, although some are challenging it by proposing the web of life, okay. Now, if Darwinian evolution was a was an absolute fact, then these books would not exist. The journals that they refer to that
they've published in the peer reviewed journals would not exist, and the universities that published them
MIT and Oxford would not exist, but they clearly do. So if it was an absolute fight, scientists wouldn't be proposing alternatives. I just want to highlight a project before and before I end
is called the third way of evolution. And this project has scientists from China. And these are all evolutionary secular mainstream biologists, right? He has scientists from China, Europe, America, Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, Princeton, Harvard, and all of these secular biologists, they do not believe in the Darwinian mechanism. And they are proposing alternatives and they believe is falling apart. Now, again, I do not endorse any of their views. All I am doing is I'm sharing that agenda project to show that there is a difference of opinion. And the reason why it's called a third way is because they don't believe in intelligent design. They don't believe in Creation Science, and they don't
believe in Neo Darwinism, so they're trying to find a third way. So just to summarize,
scientific theories are not absolute. Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory. Therefore, Darwinian evolution is not absolute. And I defined facts in the beginning, because there's multiple meanings of fact, absolute doesn't have multiple meanings. Absolute means it cannot be open to other interpretations cannot be undermined by new evidence, it is an objective part of reality. But I just wanted to highlight that before I end, now, even Richard Dawkins in his book a devil's Chaplin, he agrees that a Darwinian mechanism, not the history of life, he believes that that can actually change, he says, We must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light, which will
force our successes the 21st century to abandon Darwinism, or modify it beyond recognition. Now, I want you guys to make sure you understand this, it is the very beauty of science says conclusions can change. That's the beauty of science, it's not actually a weakness, because if it didn't change, we'd still be living in a clockwork mechanical universe. So, the very fact that his conclusions can change is a good thing. Darwinian evolution is the current working model is the current working paradigm is the current working theory. And I have no problem with accepting it as a working hypothesis working theory working paradigm working model, but it is not an absolute fact, for the
same reason that no other scientific theory can be an absolute fact. So just to summarize, it is speculative. It is based on assumptions, and they are disputes about its most fundamental ideas. I thank you very much for listening.
You timed that perfectly. My goodness. I was a little afraid of what alarm my children had recently, a phone call, we didn't get Disney song or something. But you forgot to tell us what you do in your free time when you're not
gonna let it slide for now. But later when we you know, be thinking
I'm going to call up next. The competitor are an RA. He's an atheist activist, a video blogger, a former Texas State Director of the American atheist, former host of the dogma debate, host of the raw men. That makes me hungry. podcasts. Thank you, current president of atheist alliance of America and blogger for reason advocates on the pythias network. He's also heading the phylogeny explorer project, and ever to render the entire evolutionary tree of life as a navigable online encyclopedia. Our first became known for his YouTube video series, the foundational falsehoods of creationism, which has attracted over 20 million views and 142,000 subscribers to his YouTube channel, and
resulted in his recently published book of the same name, which we've heard so much about. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I don't do anything in my off time I just work.
I'm determined to be like the hardest working activist in atheism. And I'm
so I have a slight PowerPoint here. And I apologize, it's so much of this presentation is going to have to be on semantics, it seems. Because it's my opinion that my opponent is at a disadvantage, in that he doesn't really understand the words that he's using.
His argument depends on erroneously redefining terms, and also quote, mining academics out of context, not so much in what they taking the sentence out of the paragraph, but in not understanding the meaning surrounding what they're saying. So is this working? Okay, good. I never trust these things. Right. The term Darwinism means something different here in the US than it means that the UK
American scientists wouldn't use the word Darwinism at all. American historians might
But only if they're talking about Darwin's own postulations natural selection, sexual selection or the Darwinian mechanisms because it was Darwin who first proposed them. But if you look at these last three lines, you'll see that among senior British scientists, the word Darwinism is just a synonym for biological evolution, meaning that the two words mean exactly the same thing in the UK, as anyone can see if you just look it up. Professor Richard Dawkins gives an example of where British and American scientists agree that Darwinian evolution is contrasted against lamarckian evolution, based on the mechanisms that Darwin first proposal which says, since been confirmed, and
savouries already conceded that these are a matter of actual fact, in the American understanding of that word, lamarche theory couldn't pass the test. But Darwin's did in was replaced by Darwinian theory, which was then synthesized with genetic theory to become the modern synthesis. The Mandela Darwinian synthesis is also called Neo Darwinism. And it's distinguished from Darwinism being limited to Darwin's own 19th century understanding. So when he says the word Darwinism to me, I'm hearing what they knew in the 1800s and nothing more than that.
So support does not want to accept that additional mechanisms have been discovered and integrated. He talks about there being completely new theories that are supposed to challenge the original theory. Now, these are new theories are being integrated with the original mechanisms. They started with genetic drift and moved into endosymbiosis. And to epigenetics and a number of others. These and other discoveries in cell theory have contributed to an even more robust version of evolution, which was recently announced, very recently announced yet by the Royal Society in London, in which they had an argument very much like what he's talking about, where you have scientists fighting with
each other, over whether they're going to accept Neo Darwinism, they were hating on Neo Darwinism, they want to come up with this whole new theory, and other scientists are arguing, but there's no substance to what you're talking about is not worth a whole new theory. It's just an extension. And I had to read up on as much of it as I could, I tried to invite some of these people for a podcast, but I haven't been able to get anybody who will be willing to talk to me about it. They closed the hearing for the public. But I did read some of the things that they're proposing, not worth a whole nother theory, but okay, they want to integrate some of the things which is fine.
And they call this the extended evolutionary synthesis, being an extension of Neo Darwinism, which was itself an extension of Darwinism and note that when Darwin isn't when Neo Darwinism is criticized, Darwinism remains intact. There are some people at this conference who are proposing or promote proponents of intelligent design, who said that Darwinism they thought Darwinism was more accurate back in Darwin's day. Now their opinion is irrelevant. I just show it to you to illustrate that they're making a distinction between Darwinism and Neo Darwinism. And as again, we don't use those words here.
And so anyone who was taught Darwinism in American High School is probably too old to still be alive.
What you learned in high school was not Darwinism, but Neo Darwinism in your hand, unless your professor was a silver haired Englishman,
in which case, all post lamarckian concepts and mechanisms might have been called Darwinian.
where was I? Oh, yeah.
Okay, yeah, your kids will be taught the evolution.
What isn't the extended evolutionary synthesis? I think it is. Okay, so savour says that evolution was very much into detail in a earlier video. And this is what I'm responding to. You said that evolution is something that is not controversial, because it is limited to observable changes within a single species that can be seen in one lifetime. But he says that Darwinism is a history of biodiversity from a universal common ancestor that takes millions or billions of years. So what he's done, although he doesn't seem to realize this yet, is he has conflated evolution with micro evolution, and Darwinism with macro evolution.
They didn't call it macroevolution, which would have been the easy to disprove just pull up a documented speciation. But since he's using the wrong definitions for the wrong terms, it gets vague and hard to identify exactly what he thinks he's talking about. Once we correct those terms.
Those of you who have read my book will recognize this as the 11th foundational falsehood of creationism where creationist will accept small scale evolution because it's too obvious to deny. But they'll say that large scale evolution is on observable and therefore merely a belief and savours use of deceptive deceptively vague or ambiguous language is equivocation, which amusingly is what he accused me of at this very point, but he's the one who's using the words incorrectly. Okay?
never meant what he thought it does. If you're talking to scientists of yesteryear, he got these two confused. So if you're talking to scientists of yesteryear, they would have said that Darwinism if they're talking about Darwinism, they would have talked about the first one, not the second. And if you talk about or talk to modern scientists, when they say evolution, they mean both of these, right with natural selection, and all of the other identified mechanisms combined.
Now, when the National Academy of Science made their official announcement, that evolution was both a theory and effect. They specified that they met both present and past. And they were talking about, among other things, what what goes on now and also transitional species that existed hundreds of millions of years ago. So they're talking about both micro and macro.
And this is what support meant when, when he misused the word Darwinian, or Darwinism.
So we're said that science should be revisable, which it is. And what he calls Darwinian evolution is no exception in the into can be and has been revised, altered, can be corrected, improved and updated. But he thinks that revisable means it can be completely overturned refuted is seems to be the word that he's looking for. And that's just not the case. And if reading the definition isn't enough to prove that we just look at the article, here, we see that the formal scientific definition of theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence, and that many scientific theories are so well established, that no new evidence is
likely to alter them substantially. Now, he mentioned some that have been refuted, we're talking about well established ones. Now, we're not talking about phlogiston. We're not talking about vitalism. There are a whole bunch of theories that have failed over time. But we're talking about the ones that have withstood more than a century of hard testing by the smartest people on the planet. Now, these, if I may quote, they say no new evidence will demonstrate that the earth does not orbit around the sun. That's heliocentric theory, or that living things are not made of cells cell theory, or that matter is not composed of atoms, which is atomic theory, or that the surface of
the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geologic timescales, which is, of course, the theory of plate tectonics. Like these and other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many.
I'm the only one that doesn't turn off my phone, because I think people know better. All right.
All right. So where was I reading this?
Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments, rather than speculative assumptions,
that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence and quote,
and let me see if I go to the next one.
And this is where we have to explain what a fact is. Here are definitions from Merriam Webster, one from Wikipedia, and one from the National Center for Science Education. Now, support is not like the caveat that the NCSA tacked on the end of theirs, that's fine. I don't like it either. But it just proves his point that facts are supposed to be absolute. They're not. But if you remove the word,
if you remove the word absolute, then he and I may agree that the truth is what the facts are. Because the truth is, is identified or refined as what can be shown to be true or can coordinate with reality. And in fact, as a point of data, which is either not indisputable or is indisputable, in that it is objectively verifiable, whichever way you like it, whatever wording you prefer, a fact is information that can be confirmed correct.
Now referring to the National Academy of Science, again, we read that in science, a fact typically refers to an observation, measurement or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, and this is important, because what in the video he was talking about before he distinguished the mechanisms of evolution from the explanation of evolution is the explanation that he called Darwinism, right? And he said that this is not a fact, because it has to be absolute, which of course, it doesn't have to be absolute. And he says, you can have the mechanism mechanism be effect, but the theory cannot be effect.
But here, the term fact also refers to a scientific explanation
that has been tested and confirmed so many times, that there's no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for additional examples, meaning
Then it has been sufficiently proven in the colloquial sense. And it's, it's important to understand what we're talking about, you know, when you use the word proof, you have to specify what you mean. Because we all know that science doesn't prove anything except in mathematics, right? So if we use the word proof, we have to understand we're using a legal term we're in it's an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to establish a case or so forth.
So in that respect,
the past and continuing occurrence referring to both micro and macro here of evolution, is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred, and is continuing to occur slowly studying how it happened, and not so much if it happened, because that question has already been answered. And I could rest my case, right here. But I wouldn't just use an argument from authority. I did write a book on this, I'm gonna have some idea about how to explain this just by citing and explaining the data. So like he's mentioned before he took part of a quote, It is a fact that evolution happens,
that biodiversity and complexity to increase, and that both occur naturally only by evolutionary means. It is the fact that it deals very with increasing distinction in reproductive populations. And these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups. It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance. If you accept microevolution, you have no excuse to reject macro evolution because it's a continuation of the same process. If you can walk 20 feet, then given more time and provisions, you can walk 20 miles.
It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by the Senate groups. And then multiple independent sets of biological markers exist to trace these lineages backwards over many generations. And this is one of the many facts establishing the fact of human evolutionary ancestry. It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basil form through reverse sequencing. And that those forms are indicated by comparative morphology, physiology and embryological development. In addition to chronologically correct placement in geological in successive stages. It is also a fact that every animal on earth, as you mentioned
before, has definite relatives, either living nearby or in fossil record these way, there are ways of establishing this hierarchy of arrangement, and it was done 300 years ago. So it doesn't take a whole lot of technology to figure this out. There's a simple game of Sesame Street, one of these things is not like the other. That's all the unique really, to establish this kind of a hierarchy.
And importantly, it is also a fact that both microevolution and macro evolution have been observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab, and in naturally controlled conditions in the field. And that all of these have withstood critical analysis and peer review, and I have citations for some of these in my book. We don't know everything. But we know a lot about this. And what we know, we actually know, and can show that we got it right.
Which brings me to another thing I need to bring up some more hosts a YouTube channel called Darwinian delusions.
And the idea that he calls us, Darwinists delusional, may seem like an empty insult.
But it is also a logical fallacy of psychological projection, he is projecting his own faults onto those who will not share them.
The psychiatric definition of a delusion is a persistent false belief that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary to falsely claim something when there is evidence otherwise. And it is a delusion, because the beliefs remain fixed, even when the facts are against them.
There is no actual fact that contradicts evolution. But if there was, we would simply have to consider it, and change our minds or adjust our perception accordingly.
Because we just want to understand the way things really are and improve on that understanding. We don't have a commitment to preserve or defend the belief whether it's true or not, which subword does. And this is why he will continue to believe what he believes, even when all the facts are against it.
Because creationist organizations post statements of faith, as if this was something to be proud of, wherein they admit that they will never acknowledge any evidence against them.
These are confessions that they have already rejected. And you'll notice these are all from leading creationist organizations.
These are confessions that they have already rejected all the evidence there could ever be such that no matter how wrong they are, no amount of proof will ever change their minds. their beliefs are assumed without reason and defended against all reason. Not one scientific organization or institution.
I would agree to anything so intellectually dishonest as this, because it's not the Darwinists who are delusional.
Yet this is a typical, even common admission among creationists. Because creationism, literally is a delusion, by definition, because it is a persistent false belief that will not change, despite evidence to the contrary. And as you can see here, they even admit that
and supporters admitted it to
in a video that I responded to, he said that he thinks there's nothing wrong with ignoring evidence in order to preserve a preferred assumption. But there is something wrong with that. It is dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true, yet, that's what all religions do.
But it's even worse.
As if that wasn't bad enough, it's even worse to then also say that you will never admit when you're wrong.
It ruins your reputation counts against your honor and your credibility and nullifies your word because it shows that you don't care what the truth is, even in an avenue where accuracy and accountability are paramount.
savour wants to believe that what he calls Darwinism is based on assumptions. And he imagines that its most fundamental ideas have been disputed. But of course, Darwin based his theory not on assumptions, but on observations by biologists and geologists, who came before him and on his own extensive observations around the world, comparing variations within species to variations between species and reproductive variables, and studying geology and studying what is a paleontology and so forth. And, of course, phylogeny, and his theory was tested and researched for decades before it was published. And it provided the only explanation ever, for the daughter sets, descending from a
branching hierarchy of ancestral period clades was discovered by carolus Linnaeus, a century before him when he tried his classification of life forms. Support says it's not necessary that we have an explanation for some things, and maybe he's technically correct on some matters. But we do have what there's one mystery that carelessness could never answer, and that no one could answer until Darwin. He had the one thing that made everything makes sense. And while he says that the Tree of Life has never been verified, whereas now in dispute, as director of the phylogeny explorer project, I find that quite a surprise.
Because I have this huge database, it's going to be worked on by scientists around the world. And I don't think I'm going to hear that, you know, this isn't real, right? I'm getting concrete confirmation from everywhere about this.
So no, evolution is definitely not based on assumptions, like every other scientific theory of evolution is based on observable phenomenon, and testable hypotheses. Natural Selection has since been demonstrated, each of the transitional species Darwin predicted has been found. And his idea of an interrelated tree of life has been verified again and again and again, by many different ways. These are the most fundamental ideas of Darwinian theory, and there is a consensus confirming each of them, there's no question as to how extensive some of these men can be. But there is no question and absolutely no dispute of the factual reality of any of them.
So horror wants to make believe that evolution is speculative, meaning that it's based on conjecture, rather than actual knowledge. But no, this too, is demonstrably, verifiably, obviously absolutely wrong. Evolution is and always was based on what we know, and can show and can prove even to savour satisfaction.
What creationists call Darwinism, and scientists call evolution is a verifiable inescapable fact of population genetics. And a a paleontological in phylogenetic certainty, that is consistently continuously conclusively confirmed. For a fact.
Great job so far, guys. I thought about taking a poll to see how we think they're doing but I thought we'd wait at least until after the rebuttals so the rebuttals are 10 minutes apiece. Are you ready? Do you want me to vamp a little bit Do you need any more time because I stories I can tell jokes
All right. Welcome back. Do you want a two minute warning?
Yeah, let me slip a few extra minutes.
In the Name of God, the Lord have mercy, the giver of mercy. Now I knew we were going to get into technicalities. So that's why I defined what effect meant. Now, Aaron said, This is what a fact is. And he just explained what it was. And there's a big problem with that.
That's a misunderstanding of basically basic philosophy, because fact has multiple meanings. Now, right? The beginning, he said, No, this is what a fact means. And this is what this is what I mean, and blah, blah, blah, there's no point getting into a discussion, because you have to define a term before you actually use it. And there are multiple meanings of it. There's not just one meaning and I knew we were going to get into this. So, I got this from the Cambridge website, this is a philosophy paper on is the definition of fact, the first problem of philosophy. And yes, it is. And what it does is it makes the recommendation, a word of universal use carrying such different
meanings cannot be used in a rational thinking and argument without causing immense confusion. That is why all who hope to use reason fruitfully must make it their first duty to agree upon a clear definition of the word fact. So first follow suit, because that's his favorite word, is there are multiple meanings. There's not just one meaning. And my original video was Aaron responded to this is the same way I defined fact in the video, which he responded to. And I came here today again, and I, again, I used those definitions. Now, if you don't want to agree to those definitions, and that definition knows, it doesn't change. It is certain it is absolute. So if you want to challenge that
definition, it shows you believe it can change, it is not absolute, and it is not certain. One thing I just wanted to get it gets out of the way whenever I quoted you, I always
quoted you word to word but you made a claim, which I don't believe I said that about the assumption that I won't change my belief if something or whatever. So you need to actually tell me why I said that. Just to clarify. Okay. You spoke about the extended synthesis. Right. So
I'm very surprised you said the incorporating these ideas. I have the extended synthesis I have.
I'm aware of all these topics and I'm very surprised you actually made that claim because muscle Tashi, NIH
is an ardent
anti Darwinist in the sense of the mechanism. And he says, you know, Darwin's become a god, right? Because he's angry at that. And it's, it says it's a
it's a, basically like a belief system price a dogma, and that needs to return it. So I'm very surprised you said that that's in the extended synthesis. I'd like you to show me how it is. I mean, muscle fashion, I wouldn't really agree with that. Why would Oxford University have a book on it? If it was just like, pseudoscience? Okay. Secondly, you spoke about you, you spoke about all these ideas, they can be incorporated, they can be incorporated within Darwinism. Now, clearly, Masatoshi is nice ideas, con. And if they could, why would they have such a thing as the third way of evolution? James Shapiro, he believes an evolutionary biologist who came up with evolution by
natural genetic engineering. He clearly said, Darwinism is a philosophical belief, right? More than science, he doesn't believe in God. He doesn't believe in creationism or anything like that. And he challenges it. So I'm very, very surprised you believe that these ideas can be put back into Darwinism. Now, you brought up Wikipedia, and you said, the definition of Darwinism in the US and the UK is different. Sorry, I'm just not going to accept that. That's just the silliest thing I've heard in the last 10 minutes. Right.
is a duty upon you to do your research properly. So let me just give you one example. And this is just off the top of my head. I can give you many other examples. One example. So no one uses about Darwinism anymore. Okay. Oxford University just published a book last month called Darwinism as religion. Right. Okay. This also does by the atheist philosopher of science, Michael ruse, this many books on this. Okay, I agree. The word is old. Alfred Russel Wallace is the first guy to use the word Darwinism is not a derogatory term. It is not a In fact, Michael ruse, who actually wrote that book, he calls himself a Darwinist. He's actually proud. Yes, he believes in that mechanism.
So the whole idea of bringing up Wikipedia and bringing up and also you bought the National Science Foundation, and you said some interesting things, right? So National Science Foundation, they are not a published peer reviewed philosophical paper authority, like the Journal of theoretical biology or other ones. How can you use them as an authority? And they basically, you quoted off their website and they said, new facts, some new facts can come to light that will challenge I'm assuming you're referring to Universal common ancestry. Okay. So that's really quite interesting. And I'm going to get into that because you and I don't want to misquote you here. You said it was an
absolute fact, you reconfirm that the universal common ancestry is an absolute fact. dooney.
I said that in the article they wrote, now, what do you believe? What, what do you believe universal common ancestry in the Tree of Life is a fact. It can be confirmed? Yes. Okay. And you said it was as easy as Sesame Street, except, I don't want to use the word absolute.
No, no, that's fine. That's fine. That's fine. Okay. So let's first get into that, right, because I thought that was really interesting. Okay, universal, common ancestry. Aaron used the example of Sesame Street.
I love Sesame Street. I was born in the 80s. Right? I have nothing against Bertie, right? a horrible haircut. The fact of the matter is, you can't use a very simple, trivial thing. Like, look at them, they look similar. So they must have a common ancestor. And I knew this was going to come up. This is why I bought some books with me, right? Okay. Universal common ancestry is based upon a probabilistic framework, which has assumptions, and they are conceptual problems. Aaron called it an absolute fact. Okay.
Now I bought the full paper, just in case Aaron thinks I'm misquoting because I thought he was going to make that claim. This is a formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry. Right. And it clearly says his hobby
is rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing. And it's difficult, a technically difficult empirically evaluating a theory of such a broad scope. So it's not an absolute fact, it is a theory. If it was then why would people be writing papers about it and saying these particular things.
Secondly, this is a the general theory, theoretical biology, testing the test testing the hypothesis of common ancestry. This is what it says, the hypothesis that all of life on Earth, and remember, human is human as book, this book right here, which I'm promoting, I think should give me some
money for that, right? The hypothesis that all life on Earth traces back to a single common ancestor, which you call it an absolute fact and equivalent to reality denied, never said, okay, the hypothesis that all of life traces back to a single common ancestor is a fundamental postulate in evolutionary theory. Yet, despite his widespread acceptance in biology, there has been comparatively little evidence to formally testing this hypothesis of common ancestry. And it goes on. And I mentioned the same thing the nature article does, which is that there's intrinsic difficulties. And I highlighted this for you right in the beginning, so I thought you're going to make this mistake,
there's actually a section on this, which is about why a POS may be unknowable, which is what I was referring to when I said speculative. So when it comes to, oh, my God, okay, when it comes to Universal common ancestry, your IRA made some very interesting claims. Okay.
Sesame Street, that's ridiculous. Try and find a evolutionary biologist that's going to agree with our philosophy of science that's going to agree with that, I'm just going to highlight two books here. This is evidence in evolution by Cambridge University. And this is parsimony phylogeny. And genomics by Oxford University. This is what the books agree about.
Universal common ancestry is based on a probabilistic framework, which has assumptions and there's conceptual problems. So let's look at Aaron's Sesame Street example. And let's look at what they say. Universal common ancestry and separate ancestry are testable hypotheses, nothing about Sesame Street so far, claiming homology which is similarity due to common descent, your your Sesame Street example, claiming homology is a fact and then testing it using and then testing it. And then testing universal common ancestry versus separate ancestry is circular reasoning. Another thing they agree about homology is a fundamental assumption of universal common ancestry similarities and
dissimilarities should be put within a probabilistic framework. homoplasy, which has similarities not due to common descent is an is also an assumption and is assumed to exist and complicates the assumption of homology. The Sesame Street example, ad hoc hypotheses can't be eliminated in the universal common ancestry hypothesis, but have to be minimized but here's something they do agree about. Both
The following thoughts are naive and I'm quoting word to word just in case you say I've misquoted them, humans and chimps must share a common ancestor because they are so similar. And humans and mushrooms must have arisen independently because they are so different. Within a probabilistic framework. There is no must In either case, you're not going to find words absolute fact in reality done. One last thing, if I'm allowed to say, you are upset about the phylogeny and the Tree of Life, keep your to your life, no problem. But the issue is, I am not challenging you and saying, Oh, I don't like your tree. Therefore, I'm challenging you. Princeton University, philosophy of science,
Peter Godfrey Smith, he's speaking our biologists are moving away from the tree of life to the web of life. If you've got, you know, something to say, you know, you should go speak to those people. And remember, every single person I'm referring to our mainstream evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science, I'm not referring to Bertie.
I thought I was gonna have to get my hook out.
Alright, this is pretty good. Are you ready? Or do you need me to vamp? Alright, come on up. 10 minutes, do you? I'm gonna give you a two minute warning.
Okay, well, let me know when to shut up.
When I give the definition of effect, how many definitions did I put up on the board? At least a half a dozen was more, right? I verified all the definitive sources I could find, right scientific sources, mainstream colloquial sources, whatever. And I showed that all of these definitions agreed, right? We have that on the wall and it was behind his head, I should have told him to turn around look, because he said I didn't verify my definitions. What he says is he wanted clarification at this. In his video that I was responding to. He said something about the scientists that were comparing the human genome and the chimpanzee genome. And they found very few letters as he put him
that matched and that he found, they found billions of letters that didn't match. So they just ignored him. And he said, there's nothing wrong with that. Because they assumed that their perspective is okay, or that there's professor of material perspective is true. And so anything that doesn't match that they can have confirmation bias, he didn't use the word confirmation bias, but he explained confirmation bias, you can just ignore all that. That doesn't match. And when I made the video to address that, I put text above his head to say, and probably he should have watched the whole video before making a public debate about it, where it said, You think it's okay to ignore
evidence for a for a preferred assumption, because I thought that was quite an admission to make. And of course, scientists wouldn't do that. conclusions can change, as we've established in in the definitions from the the scientific sites that I should, they said it can. But there are some that are so well established that they are considered fact that these things are not going to change. And in the video that I originally addressed, he gave two different definitions. For fact, one of them, he said, being absolute right, which normally, the definition of absolute is not in there. But the earth going around the sun was one of his facts, that it would be absolute, that evolution is not
going to be that way. One of the things that I brought up is whether we're ever going to find evidence that Earth doesn't go around the sun, can't we be absolutely certain about that?
Nobody can be absolutely certain about anything. But if we understand the laws of nature, we understand the laws of physics within this reality unless this is a matrix illusion, if we all agree that reality is real by definition, there are some things we can be absolutely certain about, right? Some things, I try to be very hesitant when I use that word. And I'm not going to use it for a fact, because we know what the definition is. And it's whether something can be verified. And everything that I've been talking about so far tonight are things that we could definitely verify. Thank you for proving my point. When you mentioned that nobody uses the word Darwinism anymore. I did say
nobody in America, but that they still do in England. So he uses the example. Yeah, there's somebody that does this guy from Oxford, what country is that?
In follows he has rarely been tested, no. phylogeny is constantly tested. They're doing whole genome searches every day. Now, it took years to do the first one, it took another year or more to do the second one, and then they started picking up their speed. And they've got computers that will now do this constantly. We have a lot of corrections in phylogenies. Now, which we weren't expecting before when they used to do things by morphology. So how do I use Sesame Street profile? Because you can't use eight you know, the simple analysis of different morphological traits to come up with a common ancestor. I didn't say that. I said you can figure out the hierarchy. carolus Linnaeus figured out
this huge quandary because he was expecting that he was going to show creative guides when he started classifying life forms, but he found this like set of matryoshka dolls here the Russian dolls what went on inside the other except that he still has 4000
something like that on average. So why or at least it let's go with the analogy the to every doll has two dolls in it and then every adult in the branch. Why? That doesn't make any sense. It doesn't fit with crazy
He never thought about the idea of a common ancestor, because he thought they were created. But he used the Sesame Street method to build this tree of life, and then was at a quandary to try to figure out how could this make any challenge the scientific community to explain to him how we are not apes, or the names or not people, because he classified them as both. And the scientific community also unable to explain that at the time, decided to make an arbitrary contrived classification called genus pongo, which they put all of the nonhuman apes in. But if you have to say, you know that you're all of them, except us. That's kind of a Freudian admission that you
already realized me You should be in that sec. And it wasn't until about 20 years ago, that genetics finally confirmed conclusively. And if I may say so. Absolutely. that humans are in fact apes, that we are apes, both by definition and derivation genetically. And morphologically, it's a twin nested hierarchy, we can now check the morphology. And sometimes we get it right. Most of the time we get it right. Just looking at the traits there. Sometimes, we didn't get it right. And the jeans showed Nope, it's on this branch, not this one. So there are corrections that we've discovered from this, because we now have a way of doing a paternity test on all of our distant ancestors. And these are
all things that he doesn't want to accept, and I'm sorry, somewhere, but you've given all these citations and things that you don't understand, like the bush of life, the web of life, the bush of life, that's my argument. I said, it's a tree of life is really a tumbleweed.
And because of horizontal gene transfer, they're not trying to replace the tree of life with the web of life. The Tree of Life applies only to eukaryotes. And it may be deeply divided between plants and animals. But the tree of life, it's it's one tree or two trees, we're not entirely certain. I think it's one tree. But it starts with an embryo. We're not going to get into that. But anyway, just let's just say one tree that forks early on, that rises out of a web.
I don't believe in a single universal common ancestor.
Yeah, for all animals, yes. That we have a common ancestor with apes. Absolutely. But not for all life. All life emerged separately in pieces in incrementally and started gathering together. This is one of the things that endosymbiosis has shown us, your it's your cells, most of your body is actually bacterial. Most of your cells are not your cells. And all of your cells are powered by bacteria. There's a rickettsia bacteria, which is normally parasitic, normally cause rickets. But there's a type of bacteria that you know it better as mitochondria,
that was apparently trapped, disabled, rickettsia invades itself does damage to the cell takes off, about if it's disabled, where it can't take off again, then the cell takes it over, and starts using inability to generate energy. So it didn't start generating ATP. And then when the when the cell splits, the rickettsia. splits separately. And plants also they have core of the, what they call the core fullness, actually, cyanobacteria.
Again, this is bacteria inside eukaryotic cells. So we don't come from one source. We come from multiple sources at the beginning of the tree, but then from then on, we can chart a full tree of life.
And I think I'm done.
Yet two minutes left, if you want to know me say, Oh, yeah. Or has this position that he is aware of things like transitional species, like, you know, Australopithecus, for example, which can't be explained and were predicted and fulfilled the predictions of science, but he chooses to ignore them. He'll make a statement, he'll turn he'll try to discredit it. And he'll say, there is no missing link, I'm sorry, there was a prediction made in the 1800s. That prediction was satisfied in 1974, you should at least acknowledge that, hey, it was predicted and found. Don't just ignore it. Don't say it never existed. That's not honest. Evolution is not based on assumptions, there is no
dispute of the fundamental ideas of Darwinian theory. And it damn sure is not speculative. This is based on what we know.
I'll go ahead and just stay here because the next portion of our evening is the one on one which I'm a little afraid to be between you guys. But boy,
so we're gonna take 20 minutes and just let you guys kind of go into each other. But if I noticed either of us being a hog with the time then I reserve the right to shush you and let the other one go. But I think we're all ready to go. We've got the boxing gloves as it were, and I'm gonna start the timer and let you guys talk.
Okay, so thanks for your I think he was a rebuttal.
So you said that, you know, humans and chimps, like it's an absolute fact that we have a common ancestor. Yeah. Okay. So I'm gonna read out hit from him read out directly, I'm not going to paraphrase it. And I want you to tell me whether that's in line with what you just said.
The following thoughts on life, humans and chimps must share a common ancestor because they are so similar Sesame Street. And humans and mushrooms must have arisen independently because they are so different. Within a probabilistic framework. There is no must In either case. Now, I'm very surprised that even though I bought two books here, and I mentioned to you, they're saying it's based on a probabilistic framework based upon assumptions and this conceptual problem such as homology being a fundamental assumption non in a non circular way. And the problem homoplasy, none of which is mentioned in your book, which was mentioned as the Sesame Street type thinking. How can
you continue to say humans and chimps must have a common ancestor? It's absolute. When people like Cambridge University, Oxford University disagree with you. They don't disagree with me. That's the thing. You keep citing experts that you think disagree with me. And they don't I can show you that they don't. You cited Craig Venter as supposedly disagree with me. No, I do.
Not here. In another video that I that I rebutted that you were paying attention to you cited Craig Venter as disagreeing with me. And I explained there No, this is what Craig Venter was talking about. You didn't understand it. You don't understand any of the experts you're talking about? I don't say that. It must be because of this one reason? No. Why does chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestor? Because we have the genetic confirmation for it, we have the genetic code to prove it. It's not just a morphology. It's also on genetics. Okay. This book, when it's actually referring to this thing that within a probabilistic framework, there is no must. It refers to physiology,
morphology, and genetics.
So you ask me a question that goes the way the question was phrased, is nonsense. I corrected the question and gave the correct answer. So what you said previously, before you came down was it's an absolute fact that they have a common ancestor. Guess. Okay. There's no doesn't say that. No, it doesn't say that. It says another thing that you just said It must be because they're so similar. That would be ridiculous. And unless extend that it's not because they're so similar. It's because we have the genetic confirmation of it. And I'm, I don't know whether you're not listening to this, or you don't want to listen to this. It literally says to say they have a common ancestor
is okay, I'll explain it
in a probabilistic framework one seconds, I just want to quote it directly. Within a probabilistic framework, there is no must In either case, right? Both these books, they treat common ancestry in separate ancestry as testable hypotheses, they treat homology similarities due to similar some common descent recipes, for example, as a probabilistic framework, which has assumptions, which has problems, okay. Right. I'm assuming you haven't read these two books, because they weren't. None of this was in your book. Right. Right. Now I'm reading direct quote to you, which doesn't tell
you not acknowledging it. I can't because what you read doesn't help your case. And you don't understand that.
pansies and humans have to must have a common ancestor. It would be ridiculous to say that humans a chimpanzees must have a common ancestor because they're so similar. Yes, that sentence is correct. And that's not why I say they have a common ancestor, as I said, Because within the last 20 years or so we finally got the genetic confirmation to prove it. And it has nothing to do with that sentence. This book is referring to genetics, morphology and physiology, but that's not it. So you got is it? It is?
The sentence you got says nothing.
Have you got the heck did
I read the whole thing? If you read that book? If you read that sentence, tell me where the word genetics or anything of blind genetics shows up in that sentence? Perfect. Okay. Can we?
If it does, would you admit you're wrong? It's a word genetics or something implying genetic seals open the book? Yep. Yeah. repeating the same sentence again, let's look at a new words pop up. Okay. I didn't read the whole sentence because of the size of it. I've highlighted it here. Right? Let me know when it does mention genetics. matches the sentence you read to me did not have genetics in it. You said that you can't say that they have whether you should you there's no must no changing the goalposts. Can I read out? Can I say this having it read? Can I read it? I said the sentence you read, did not read it was correct that it didn't make sense. There is no mustard it does not because
they have their civil again. Now can I read it? But much is made in popular press of the fact that DNA sequences of humans and chimps are about 90% similar is this similarity.
compelling evidence that we and chimps share a common ancestor. Since since each site in the sequence is characterized characterized by four nucleotides, we have here a set of four state, not to Congress's characters. But the point about the process of generating the data is the same. The expected percentage similarity of humans and chimps, according to the separate ancestry hypothesis would be 25%. If each site involved independent evolved independently by the process of random genetic drift, and the lineages have been evolving for a long time. In this case, the observed similarity of 90% was strongly favor common ancestry over separate ancestry. However, if there was a
strong selection in each lineage for the traits that one observes, the expected degree of similarity would be about the same, regardless of whether the common ancestry or the separate ancestry hypothesis is true. And then you mentioned the centers I mentioned. So it's within the context of genetics, physiology, and morphology. And it doesn't mention anything that was discovered since 1974. We already knew that you're going off on a tangent, tangent, you're going off. You're talking about something else now? No, you said this was referring to genetic
genetics, right? You You're interrupting before, I mean, sorry, what I just not a tangent, it's on the same thing. Okay. I did tell you that was just in the last 20 years that we had confirmation of this, we did know, in 1974, that we have this 106% similarity depending on how you measure it. But that wasn't the conclusive factor. It was the human, human, chimp genome. Number two, that was the conclusive factor. They're not saying it's a conclusive factor. They say, I know that. That's fine. So we agree that we agree is not good. We use
that argument doesn't help you, you said it was an absolute fact. And according to mainstream academics, it is based on a probabilistic framework, which has assumptions and conceptual problems, like homology, homoplasy, except that it didn't bring up the conclusive factor that I just mentioned.
University then you're brought up with a new in 1974, but didn't bring up what they knew in 1994. Okay.
This book was published in 2008. So Cambridge University isn't up to date. It's not my It's not my fault that they don't include the conclusive factor. You said, You said it was a bias work already. You said it was already somebody that doesn't agree with it. So of course, he's not going to explain how humans
factor Hang on one second, one second. And he has over believes in human, chimp ancestry. Right. He does. He does. Okay. We you said I thought you said he didn't know.
What else do you have to say? Because you're saying it's an absolute fact, and it's not widely agreed upon? So human, chimp genome number two doesn't exist, because it didn't show up that paragraph.
Hang on, hang on a second, conclusive factor high not mentioned there doesn't exist? Because it's not mentioned there. No, you're saying if the guy's expertise is in question, because he failed, he failed to mention that. Let's just assume, okay, let's just assume Cambridge University don't know what they're talking about. Right? We'll bring up something relevant second, second, you still referring to homology? Are you not? No,
I wasn't at all. So the sesame is wrong in Sesame Street. Sesame Street was homology. Yes. And that's not the reason. That's why your sentence didn't make any sense. So that's why I had to correct it, because it wasn't about your book goes and mentions homology, many, many, many, many times. Right. throughout the book, I found surprising, no, homoplasy No, no discussion of the fact that it is a probabilistic framework based on some assumptions, and they are conceptual problems, and no words. And this is what I found really shocking. Not once did you actually explain that to assume homology? And then say that two things are similar. Therefore, they must have a common
ancestor? This is circular reasoning. I never said anything like that. No, what I'm saying is, why didn't you say why didn't I use a circular argument? Because I'm wise No.
One ever said assume homology.
What do you mean? No.
You used homology, right? I explained homology. I didn't say anybody should assume it. I never say anybody should assume anything. You this. There's a certain paragraph actually, that he's bringing out the second paragraph where you said, apes are so similar to us that, you know, if some of those ancient ape human ancestors were alive, you know, we couldn't we wouldn't be able to classify them separately. You said that, right? That is correct. Is that homology? Yes, it isn't, if you can distinguish, can't distinguish a transitional transitional person between the between the divergence, human divergence from chimps.
to modern man, if you can look at one of these people in this interview, and you can't tell if they're ape or if they're human, that's kind of the definitive characteristic of being transitioning, and that human is this person. And you can't just do it. Are they able? Are they human? This is why I brought up my book that creationists were given a set of skulls to them, and there's actually one skull. Duane Gish identified this one skullcap as being 100%. Eight, or I think it was it was 100% human the first time and then they gave it to somebody else.
I can't remember what piece that was. And then they gave it to another creationist, the third creation of bluebell, I think, and he said it was 100% human. So we've got all this discrepancy, and then they give it back to Michigan like six years later. And now what he said was 100% human analysis is 100%. Eight, it's the same sculpt.
He's just looking at the same scale again. So he puts it 100% on both sides of any category. And they the other two guys didn't agree with each other either. So if you can't decide even what it is, then isn't that exactly what a transitional species is? Okay. So
you mentioned homology that clearly. And that was used as proof of common descent? No.
Because you're assuming those apes or ancestors, correct? No.
We do say, if you if you're explaining the transitional species, if you encounter what people were asking for an ape, man, right, and then they were given the name and they were given whole Erectus clearly, what they understood to be a recording of that contrived artificially constructed, genus pongau. Right, if you have to put apes one category of humans in another willdan, this is this one, this one is an eight man. And when we picked up 1000s, of other ones, 1000s of individuals, a couple dozen species, perhaps, of what they both ape and man, you can't tell them apart. This is before they get to genetics, we've already got where we have Homo habilis and hobo route of SS and early
trauma records was all over the place. They're all different sizes and shapes, that were way more diverse than modern people. I can just interject what I've read the book. So you don't need to explain again, you using homology My question is very particular, let me ask the question, you can answer it. You mentioned homology, right? And you at the end of the book, you have loads of facts in there is the fact that we have a common ancestor. So fact is definitive. But you can take the genomes and you can get basal form, you said it's a fact fact, yet, and I find this very strange, you didn't mention the fact that homology and to use homology is you have to use it within a
probabilistic framework, which has assumptions and they are conceptual problems. Not once. Did you mention that there is such a thing as homoplasy? And not once did you actually mention that they are conceptual problems within this, and this is based upon Bayesian decomposition with nine mathematical assumptions, and then you get a probabilistic framework, and somebody could be justified and actually saying universal common ancestry is probable yet under other conditions, as mentioned in this book, and he's an atheist, by the way, he doesn't believe in God. under other assumptions, separate ancestry favors universal common ancestry. Right. Now, if you mentioned that
in your book, I would have no problem and I did. I did explain that probabilistic Yes. Do you Why do you call it a factor? Because effect, it's not absolute. Okay, that's good. You said that, no, I don't, I might go with the definition that I provided in the book. I don't want to end that I showed a consensus definition on the board. It's a point of data that can be objectively verified.
Here we go. And bear in mind, the book is dealing with creationist arguments. So I'm attacking specific ones. I did explain how science works, not with the type of certainty or assertion that religious beliefs have, but rather that you use you can speculate you can make an assumption, but you have to negate it by testing it, okay. It has to be based on evidence, and then it has to be testable and potentially falsifiable and that you cannot make an unsupported assertion like you do in religion. Okay, here are your words. Exactly.
And if I misquote you, I'm gonna give you this, we're recording everything. So somebody can go online to find out, right?
It would be perverse to say taxonomical classification are fantastically improbable, accidental coincidence, that would be a statistical impossibility, which reaches into the realm of reality denial.
It is an absolute fact.
You have a qualifier that this fact is absolute. The word fact is not absolute. The definition of fact is not. But some facts are absolutely and I just explained that five minutes ago, thinking of five minutes, that's how much you have left.
So how would you explain that? You know, you make these predictions are they Oh, nobody predicted
Whoever it was, that was a bit of a surprise. Right? people found neanderthalensis, that was a bit confusing. But then you get into Houma. rectus. And now you will find who Erectus all over the place you have the jutting brow, we have the 400 cc Brent went a little bit bigger than that, maybe up to 1300. But there's a wide range, wide, wide range of heights and everything's displaced all over Asia, and Africa in parts of Europe. How do you account for Homo habilis over defenseless? Homo floresiensis? hominid naughty? Yeah, I mean, what do you mean by that? Like, how do I account for as an insolent? How do you account for you? You're asking as a Muslim, right? I'm asking you. Yeah,
I believe they exist. And I'm not gonna say, well, you're a Libra. If this man asked me the question, and I'll answer it. Yeah. What is? What do you think of the answer? No, because you're asking a question. without actually putting an actual question in there. It sounds like a question. But it's like, how do you account for it? How do you account for it? In what terms? Because Because, look, look, okay, let me let me answer it two ways come entre as a Muslim, no zebra. And also, I'm going to answer in context to this debate, right? Number one, anything that they find a woman, the lady hammer actors, you know, whatever they find, to, to take those skulls and to take a line of
fossils. And to claim that this is a descendant of this, according to Henry II and evolutionary biologist, just like all the rest of them, and an atheist, he says that it is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but a bedtime story, you can't prove it with a fact, this is what Henry D says in his book, misunderstandings of human evolution, right. Let me give you an example. Let me let me answer that question, right. So if you're going to use similarities and say, therefore common descent, then I'm just going to repeat the same thing like I did previously, like a parrot. That is based upon a probabilistic framework, which has assumptions and this conceptual problems,
such as Homo playzee similarities, which are not due to common descent. So if you're going to maintain the line of Sesame Street similarities are due to common descent, except when they're not in the best interest of the car or explained. Okay, let me let me answer, right. Secondly, and this is as a Muslim, right. Okay, these things existed.
I mean, it's not a theological problem for us. I mean, theologically Look, if we're gonna get again, to this, theologically, is not even a problem. If, you know, somebody says, okay, you know, the whale evolved from some sort of landmark. I mean, look, these things are irrelevant, right? When it comes to Islam, to religion in which you worship the one creator, we believe God is the cause behind all things. But when he goes into particular things about this might be an ancestor of this. So this might be this particular thing, let the way I think about is let the scientists do their work, right. That's why I accept it as a paradigm I accept as a model. I accept it as a theory. But the
same reason I believe that it is not an absolute fact, is the same reason why you believe string theory is not an absolute fact, because they're both scientific theories.
But the theory of evolution meets the definition of effect. Whereas string theory is the way I the way I define fact, at the beginning, oh, no, no, the way the world defines facts, the way the half a dozen different definitive definition. So I gave up there. For what effect is, David, I'm gonna give this as a present for you to read, right? There is no consensus on this. This is why it gives you the piece of advice and design, you will get this is going to come up.
It gives you a piece of advice. And I don't know if I let me address so.
He actually says this. He was saying there's 15 definitions or whatever. He says there's no way to prove Okay, what
a word of universal use carrying such different meanings cannot be used in a rational way and argument without causing immense confusion. That is why all who hope to use reason fruitfully must make it their first duty to agree upon a clear definition of fact, my original video, which you responded to, I defined fact, in the exact same way that I defined fact today. And there are multiple ways you can actually define it. Until today, philosophers of science, philosophers of language they disagree on a definition. So you're saying this 15 definitions, and generally they will say these things? It's not that simple. No, it is that simple. I showed a half a dozen
definitions that all agree on the primary point that is information that can be verified when you define facts. In your video, you gave two different definitions. One of them contradicted the other one. You said what that effect is something that is absolute, like the earth going around the sun, which by the way, is a theory and you said a theory can't be a fact. And then you said that a theory that you define fact as a working model, or the best, the best hypothesis we have currently for the data, which also doesn't make any sense and doesn't define fact, and you can't find any
The Definitive source to support you on either one. Okay, so actually, I'm gonna stop you there. And I'll just say one thing. I won't be just one thing we'll see. I'll get you one more.
We can observe the earth going around the sun. I don't know why you calling it a theory, okay? Because you don't know what theory means. I just read the definition, body of knowledge in the field of study. It encompasses facts and laws and testable hypotheses. And it's a direct observation. Yes, like evolution is even macro evolution. Okay, you using your again, conflating evolution with Darwinian evolution, if I ask you to do
with your misinterpretation, even even the mocking evolution? No. All right, guys there because now we are going somewhere else, and you'll get a lot more chances to talk in a few minutes, we're gonna take five ish, let's see what time is it on my smartphone, it's 807. So let's meet back here at 815. And we're gonna give you guys a voice by reading some of your questions and letting them respond. Thank you.
I need a signed copy.
I'm a PhD student in evolutionary biology. I just defended my thesis in November. And what's really interesting is he keeps talking about May, and may was the thesis advisor for a professor in my department. And the thing that he says about Darwinian evolution is that he thinks that natural selection exists to eliminate deleterious phenotypes. And that's what he's actually saying. Are you saying that my opponent is quoting from scientists, when he doesn't understand what they're saying? I'm afraid so. Could you tell him that?
I would appreciate it if you would.
for believers, it's very much a matter of authority. So and if he's going to be citing people, you need to know what they're saying.
Alright, guys, I'm gonna go ahead and get us started. Again, even though I still haven't read through all of these because I'm sure while these guys debate I can read, right, I'm sure I'll be able to concentrate on one of these. So let's go ahead and wind down conversation. And we'll get started. Again, this is where the teacher in the room would say, clap once, if you can hear the sound of my voice.
We've got a lot of questions here that are most of these are directed at one of the two of you. So I'm going to try to go back and forth. And I will honor your time and be done by nine. And several of the questions are that are similar. So I'm a lump sum together. But we will start with this one is for some more. And the question is, and if I say this incorrectly, it's on you for not being written clearly says the best I can do. Even if we grant your assertion that Darwinian evolution is not valid, and all life is the result of a creator. What is the basis for assuming that Allah? Is this creator instead of some other God? It seems like even if you could prove evolution was false,
it still does not follow that Islam is true, does it? Okay, you need me to read it again.
No, I'll try and remember, okay.
So I just want to clarify my position. I'm not here to show dogs. Evolution is wrong. Evolution is an observation, we can actually see it. Just to give you a small, beautiful example of what might be considered a macro evolution or micro evolution. I don't like using the terms micro and macro. There's a whole discussion about whether we should use them or not. So it's better just to use evolution simply means biological change, tree of life, and natural selection. So
I have no problem with evolution, I have absolutely no problem with Darwinian evolution, either. It's a working model is a working paradigm, it's a working theory, nobody should ever get in the way of scientists doing their work. Now, in regards to an alternative,
I'm not here to preach and explain that since Darwinian evolution is wrong, therefore, you know, you guys should basically become Muslim. I'm not here to do that. What why I am here to do is to say that Darwinian evolution, just like any other theory in science, is not absolute. And Darwinian evolution, I believe, has been hijacked by some people who want to turn it into religion, which is the same same book I was referring to Darwinism as religion written by Michael ruse, who's an atheist, and he was also a Darwinist. So it's not a derogatory term. I don't mean to insult anyone, and I don't believe it should be turned into a religion. Like, for example, I'm sure Aaron's aware
of Julian Huxley, his book, religion without revelation, which was Darwinism, right.
Okay, that's a good, that's a good picture. So
I'm not here to do any of those things. I'm simply here to show it is just like any other theory in science, it is not absolute.
So, I may address that he keeps trying to distinguish evolution and Darwinian evolution as if they're different, but he's accepting the natural selection, which is the Darwinian part. And that's the micro evolution part. He does not yet he hasn't recognized still that he's talking about micro and macro. I don't know why isn't pizza together, but we're not talking. There's not a distinction between evolution on one side, and Darwinism on the other. Darwinian evolution is the natural selection thing. That's the micro part. You've got it backwards. Just call it evolution. That's what it is. Okay. Just just wanted to clarify that, like I mentioned in my talk previously, is eunomia,
and philosophy, zoological philosophy, decades before Darwin, Rasmus Darwin, and john bubsy remark, they use evolution in the sense of biological change over time. Darwin came later. So when I'm referring to evolution, I'm not referring to natural selection working at the micro scale, I'm not just referring to the, you know,
catch wells, moth experiment and anything like that, I'm simply referring to the way it was used previously. And still, today is still a valid way of
defining it, for example, the dafina fee, whenever whenever recognizes there's a predator in the water, it grows a helmet and a tail spike. That's evolution. There is nothing wrong with generally believing in biological change of time. Now, as a theory, I don't use the terms micro and macro, and I believe I am.
It's not my territory to decide whether they are valid terms or not, for example, if that's what you're describing for it, for example, there's a whole discussion amongst evolutionary biologists about whether those terms should be used or not. Right? I just keep away because it's a bit of a contentious issue, right? I do believe in evolution as an observation, as it was defined before Darwin, until today, it is valid. What I do not believe is an observation is the Tree of Life of the web of life of the edge of life of the push of life. And note, I believe, natural selection, working on mutations, being the cause behind all of this is epistemic, Lee the same way as an observation of
the definitively. I just wanted to clarify that, but then we're gonna get to more questions. Yeah. For the last 20 years, I've been making a challenge that I can prove evolution to your satisfaction. And I've made this challenge to dozens of people. And to date, only one person has actually taken the challenge and gone to fruition and the conversation to have so because there's going to be a series of questions, you have to answer the questions, if you ignore if you repeatedly ignore any direct questions, it's default, and I'm under no obligation to proceed any further. There's only been one time that anybody took that challenge and actually went through all the questions. That
person not only accepted evolution, but she later married me.
I was just like, I would I would like to, if you were wondering.
So I would like to wonder what would it take to change your mind because it is a fact. And I can prove that y'all are gonna have to take that argument until afterwards. Now, when I get to everybody's questions, and if we run out, I'll let you spar some more. This one's juicy. And I think this is mostly directed at you, but I'll let you just take a stab at it. How does evolution reconcile such a useless genetic mutation, such as homosexuality, since that contradicts the, quote, survival of the fittest principle.
Homosexuality might be a reaction to overpopulation. That is one of the mathematic equations on how homosexuality occurs in any breeding population, the percentage, and mathematically it works out that if a group if an organism or if a collective becomes two volumes for one group, that percentage that are homosexual will help restrict that growth.
There's a philosopher of science called David stove. He's written a book about it, even though he's an atheist. And you know, he doesn't believe in creationism, anything like that. He just speaks about assumptions or predictions if the Darwinian paradigm was true, whether those are actually confirmed. And his book is called Darwinian fairytales. And what he goes through is homosexuality and other
things, which for him, don't make sense under his particular worldview. Now, I'm not here to make any comments on homosexuality at all. But what I will say is, I agree with David stoves conclusion, which is the conclusion which I think, you know, any rational person can accept, which is Darwin's theory of evolution, even though it's the best thing we currently have as a paradigm is not true in an absolute sense. And that's all I'm actually here to do. And my position is echoed by other, you know, secular academics. It's not some new way you see you keep saying
That, but two citations you bring up don't agree with you. Okay, so the
next question. All right. This is fun you guys.
This question goes to the bar and says, How can you claim? I'm sorry, this sentence is funny to me. How can you claim that humans and mushrooms are so different as to refute evolution? their genetic code is the same, many of their enzymes and structural proteins are functional substitutes, their organelles are the same, their means of replicating are mechanically related. That sounds interesting. Sounds tasty?
Just to go back, nothing I said today about, you know, the people offering to as my interpretation of what they think that the question is referring to something which I mentioned from evolution and
evidence, the logic behind the science. And what it basically says there is to use homology and to say, look, because these two things are similar, therefore, they must have a common ancestor. And these two things are different. So therefore, they do not have a common ancestor. The call was basically in the context of you can't say a must within a probabilistic framework is a probabilistic framework is based upon assumptions Beijing's decomposition with nine mathematical assumptions. Plus, they are conceptual problems such as defining homology in a non circular way. And also the existence of homoplasy. So
much mushrooms are tasty. I don't, I don't really disagree with them being tasty. It didn't comment on the sex life of mushrooms, but we'll save that for another night.
says what degree of influence? By the way, whoever read this question, excellent penmanship.
What degree of influence to the alternatives to Darwinian evolution, ie the third way, hold in the scientific community? Are they being seriously considered by mainstream scientists? Or are they quote fringe?
And the problem with some of the claims that the scientists are making is although there are other there are other mechanisms, they don't have the same weight, as natural selection does. I mean, there's like, niche generation, for example, construction, nice construction, thank you. These are while at while they are factors in the development of life with the evolution of life, they're not necessarily the type of mechanism that they're laying them out to be, they certainly aren't a challenge. So there's nothing that anybody is bringing up as far as the new mechanisms that they want to report that actually displaces of natural selection, and certainly nothing that just proves
natural selection, everything that they suggest is actually concordant. With what we already know, this is just additional information. at best. Nobody's come up with a third way that disproves or discards the proper ways. And I don't know what they mean, by the third way. And the reason I have to question what he's saying when he brings up these things, and I don't know is because he mentioned something in his video about the people comparing the genome in human DNA and all that.
I had to get a geneticists friend of mine to find out what paper he was citing, right? And then look it up. So I've got a professional geneticist who's reading this who says, I don't know what this guy's talking about, what 1.3 billion letters, they ignored it, where does it say that? So we're both reading through it, and neither one of us could glean from it what you did. So this is why I'm convinced that you simply don't understand the arguments that you're reading. Okay.
two quick things. One, I'm going to show you alternatives and also that. So number one, in regards to that paper itself is on the video, which is there's two there's two particular papers I cited. One was that paper from nature, which is titled I don't remember, but it's in the YouTube videos embedded in that the second was the relative differences with the 1%. And john Cohan and other evolutionary biologists they're speaking about the 1% is a gross oversimplification. And they currently don't know enough to work out percentage now. That's their view. Okay, as I was referring to two things, now, in regards to
niche construction is not an alternative. Right? I believe it can. There's a book that was just recently published by Princeton and what they said is,
these are the people who are putting forth Nice, nice construction as a as a theory, and they have found a way of incorporating it within Darwinism. The Neo Darwinism mechanism, so that's not a problem. But the other The third way of evolution guys, like okay, the question is, are they fringe okay? Two things here. Number one is they are fringe Darwin at one point was fringe, they became mainstream, to one of the people that's on here is called
Wolds, who's published papers you can find on the third way of evolution.com. And he discovered the third domain of life archaea. So even if they were fringe, and they're not frankly, it would be irrelevant, because let's just assume there was no alternative. Let's just let's just go with that. Let's just assume there was no alternative. And you know, these guys from Oxford, MIT, Princeton, Harvard, and Oxford, and whatever, right? They weren't there. Even in that case, according to philosophers of science, they are alternatives to our best theories equally well confirmed by the evidence, even when we even if we are unable to conceive of them at the time, this is what called
Stanford philosopher science says, and he's an atheist and an, you know, he doesn't have any sort of religious bias. So this is main stream understanding of philosophy of science. Yes, the views of evolutionary biology that I was referring to, are number one, I don't endorse them, too. I do agree. They're not mean, they're not like, there may be mainstream biologists pushing it as in terms of secular biologists, but they haven't become they haven't taken a foothold in the scientific community. The reason why I raised them is not that I endorsed them is to show there is a discussion going on. Because the discussion exists, because they obviously understand it's not absolute than
help me with no, that's not what they're saying. That's not even their understanding. So on the concept of niche construction, how would that impute or how would that challenge natural selection? He doesn't think, you know, that does the point.
Well, that's the whole problem with presenting this third way is every one of these aren't isn't really agenda, justice. And just a second that I mentioned at the beginning. That's what the book says, you when you mentioned nice construction, nice construction is not an alternative, because they found a way of incorporating it within the current method to discuss current paradigm, the other mechanisms they haven't, and the people proposing the mechanisms, such as James Shapiro, they do not believe that Darwinism has any hope. In terms of its mechanism, it has to be really specific about that, because I've heard these arguments. And I've read these arguments that these people are
making, and a lot of them just don't have the substance for the very reason you just illustrated yourself that nice construction has has nothing to say against natural selection, these constructions on an alternative I never mentioned as an alternative. I mean, shows that I know what you're not saying Yeah. Okay. But it's good. In the case of any of these other mechanisms that I want to bring up. There's nothing that actually challenges or replaces what we already know. It just adds to it. That's it. So why would you come up with a third way? That's distinct? You wouldn't? Okay, because you already accepted in the natural selection things?
Just answer the question that came in that specific question, just to be fair there, but again, sparring later, at the after party. And this question is for civil war, it says, Do you believe in multiple episodes of creation? If not, how do you account for only permanent organisms and the earliest fossils?
Do you believe in multiple episodes of creation? If not, how do you account for only primitive organisms in the earliest fossils? Okay, take a look. I'm guessing it's referring to multiple origins here.
They are loads of possible creation scenarios, right? And I'm not endorsing one particular one. Okay. Because as a Muslim, when it comes to the creation story, we don't have a
I mean, we don't have this belief, which is in the Bible that they are separate kinds. And you know, these kinds of unchangeable. It's actually like this The silence and even when I tried to look up, what was the date? You know, when do we as Muslims believe that? There was the first
Adam, basically the first human?
What I got was, there is no date and Okay, what about home directors home and allottee? And these things? And the answer I got was, okay, other things existed, and then
it was created separately. Now, just on this issue of creation, there's a book called
the Padma Purana, which is a 3000 year old Hindu text, right. And in this book, it gives a very clear picture of the creation of life being like a tree of life, identical in law, its details, but its structure of Darwin's
tree of life, and are basically professor of Sanskrit at Oxford University.
Manya Williams, he basically explains, look, the Hindus were Darwinist centuries before Darwin in regards to that sort of thing. So
who whoever comes up with the creation story?
Some kind of amusing creation very vaguely here, right? Because even if you don't believe in God, you still believe that things exist is there some form of creation, right? It doesn't matter where it came from. Because just to disprove from where it came from would be the genetic fallacy. We have a very clear description of the tree of life in the bottom of brown, which is 3000 years old. But it would be ridiculous for me to sit here and say, because it's in the ancient book, and then Darwin later
adopted it. And his grandfather, Erasmus, Darwin wrote about this gradual beginning and junonia. it, you can't shoot the idea down where, because of where it comes from, if you see my point, you have to look at the validity of the idea itself. And the reason why we speak about the mechanism is if the mechanism fails, then the history of life to fails, because the Tree of Life idea existed prior to Darwin. And it came down to the Greek philosophers, and then it came down to the enlightenment. And he was well known
as an idea before Darwin, Darwin came along and he filled the gap, which was a mechanism by which it happened. Natural Selection works in variations, hence why there's so much controversy when you bring up problems with the mechanism. But I just want to reiterate this one last point, again, and again, I don't endorse any of those alternatives. I was just showing them as the fact that there exists a disagreement about some of the core ideas of dominance.
The Parana I'm pretty sure that's the right one. I don't I don't have batteries on here to check it. But I'm pretty sure the perona was contextually dated to about 2600 years or so it can't be 3000 years because it mentions Buddha. And it says that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu. And then he appeared in this guy's to delude the atheists that simultaneously, also contextually dated around 2600 years ago as the Bhagavad Gita, which in which Krishna complains about demonic people who believe that the divine diversity comes only from cohabitation and lust. No more than this. The different species breed themselves were supposed to read it through I don't remember the exact
quote. But that's basically what it says. I wish I could think of a clever segue from
this question. It doesn't say who it's for, but I'm gathering it for you. But this is what it says changes in organisms are apparent, even interspecies mutations can be observed over time. But we have never seen a transition from one species to another and then in parentheses, fish to cow, let's say, doesn't it take? Doesn't it take faith to accept that Darwinian evolution, something we've never observed is true. My book lists
dozens of observed speciation events, we have seen the emergence of new species, cow is not a species. Just to give you
what was what was the example given here, a fish to cow we actually have for paleontology, we can actually show this one because we do have quite a fluid transition into tetrapods. And we go a long way before we get into cattle, and then cows and things like that. But yes, we have observed the origin of new species, or divergence of new species.
Basically, doesn't it take faith to be a Darwinist? Yeah.
Any belief that I'm an I'm an anti theist, I'm also an epistle to this. And a pistol. This is somebody who rejects faith as being the most dishonest position, it is possible to have any any belief that requires faith should be rejected for that reason. Okay. Just wanted to make a quick point about changes in the species as a team as a species. Let's say you're asking this question that the cow and the fish
I would say, I mean, I'm guessing you're you're Christian who have asked this question, I would say, look,
scientists, they have this working paradigm, right? That Darwinian evolution, right? leave you alone as a paradigm, leave you alone as a theory, let them do their work. There's no reason to bring your theology or even me as Muslim, my theology and try and challenge scientists, but just on this particular question, there's 26, different definitions of species. Right. And it's not as simple as Oh, you know, you work with this species.
You know, we will work it out. This is related to that, even though there's a mechanism and there's an explanatory power behind the mechanism. Theoretically, something could be, but it doesn't mean it was there's a difference. Theoretically, it could be. So for example, how did this thing evolve? Oh, it could have been that it doesn't mean actually, that's actually the way it happened. So I think it's very important to sort of make a distinction in those things. And lastly, I'd like to ask this question, say the fish did leave
To the cow. How on earth would that change your belief or your faith?
Okay, does it there's a link between the fish in the cow.
You shouldn't I mean, I'm a strong believer like Professor Alex Alister McGrath at Oxford University, he was a Christian theologian, former atheist. And he basically says, Look, let the scientists do their work, okay, I don't believe in it. And I, you know, things can change, but let them do the work. Don't get involved in these, you know, crazy Creation Science type things, which actually hinder the progress of science, let it be as a paradigm therapy as a model, let it be as a theory, let them do their work, because at the end of the day, what they're doing is saving lives. Something that for example, in the Quran, it says, Whoever the same saves the life of one human
being saves the lives of all which is also in the Torah, the Old Testament, so let the scientists do their work, don't bring theology into it. I'm a strong believer in that. So since we have the creationist defending evolution, let the atheist also defend Christianity for a moment, just to be amusing.
I'll allow it, it is possible to interpret the Bible when it says that God said, Let the earth bring forth, read it literally.
All right. I was trying to think if we could squeeze two questions in, but I think you guys have proven we cannot, I'm going to do one more question. Because I've been told that we actually need to end by 845. So you guys can actually be gone by nine. And so this question just says, What is the most important point you want to make? So this is a freebie you can end on one point that you most want to have the audience here before we leave, and I didn't make this up. This is real card. What is the one point the most important point you want to make?
Well, if you're going to me first, it is you know that the fact being data that can be confirmed that there's something that we can show to be true. And it's not assumption. So certainly, to damn sure isn't speculation, we have ways we can show this, we can prove it, we can verify it. And I'd be happy to do that for you. But of course, it's going to take some time to work it out. And I would rather do that in a written format, because then we can compare data, and you know, show links and so forth. But it would it would be just that this is not faith. This is not a religious position. This is something we know and can show. me right. So that's
the most important thing I'd like to say is that whenever there is a paradigm that exists in science, it doesn't mean that that paradigm is absolutely is true in apps in an absolute sense. The philosophy of science and astrophysicist Thomas Kuhn, he wrote a book the structure of scientific revolutions. And he speaks about how there was major paradigm shifts and the history of science chose these major paradigm shifts, for example, from the classical Newtonian worldview, to the quantum and the relativistic worldview, in which what happened and I want you guys to realize this, what happened 200 years, we had Newtonian predictions precisely, this plan is going to be in this
place at this particular motion on this day, and it was there. But the fundamental assumptions of that world of that paradigm turned out to be false. According to today's paradigm, the relativistic paradigm, which is time and space, or fixed, now, there seem to be dynamic. There is the definition of mass itself changed. Gravity is no longer a pulling force. It's actually space time curvature. And it's a pushing force. Look at those conceptual changes. And according to some evolutionary biologists like James Shapiro,
biology is going through a similar conceptual revolution. So just because an even if it wasn't, even if it wasn't, assume Darwinian evolution, as a paradigm is going to exist for the next 1000 years. There's no reason for any person, Muslim Christian atheist, to attack it as a scientific theory, let the scientists do their work. Just don't turn it into a religion, which is something I believe has happened to
Darwinism it has been hijacked. The theory itself has been hijacked by some people like Richard Dawkins, who says, Darwin allowed him to be an intellectually satisfied atheist, he says, isn't the blind watchmaker? I don't think he should use his position in science to propagate his belief.
Which by the way, that board no resemblance to a religion
was what you just described the doctrines that were no relief to being intellectually satisfied. Just means you know that you're justifying whatever you believe you believe for reasons, right not faith reasons. That means not religion.
Darwinism as religion, the book I was referring to, is speaks about, yes, it gives them that intellectual satisfaction Darwinism but
Should it lead them to be convinced of atheism? And as you in your book, The first foundational falsehood, which I agree with you, and also I read the power, perhaps you couldn't get that right. But anyway, the first foundational falsehood I agree with you, why equate evolution with atheism? So last thing we can agree about, it shouldn't be turned into a baton to bash the religious people when evolution equals evolution, it doesn't equally.
Alright, I'm gonna wrap it up on that note, and thank you guys both for coming and for being gracious sports. And I didn't have to break into this fight. Thank you all for coming. Did you have any closing remarks, Nick?
Yeah, just Thanks. Thanks to everybody for coming. Thank you very much to both of our debate participants. And those those