all right so we're going to debate evolution and whether here was in chimps share a common ancestor the reason this is particularly important aspect of evolution because it's the aspect that sabores said is the thing that is long as fear about didn't happen and I think the evidence is clear that it did happen so I just present a little bit of evidence there's lots of it you got evidence from genetics from paleontology from archeology from biography many fields of study I'll just start with like one paper it's very important it's this paper here it was in nature it's the sequence of the chimpanzee Gina and it's done by the two Posey consorted genome sequencing consortium and many of the world's leading genomic Institute's signed off on this paper and this is what they said they said more than a century ago Darwin and actually posited that humans share recent common ancestors with African Grey Apes modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction so you know they don't usually have in science journals like quite such strong language but the reason is strong is because we really do have spectacular evidence for it so let me give you this couple of examples so there are genes they get duplicated and when they get duplicated they can malfunction they can lose their original function telophase and these are called pseudo genes and if you look at the tube Geno there's many there's many many pseudogenes there just take one example this is a pseudo gene called nano and if you look at how many cuts pseudogene copies they have the chimpanzee genome has 10 pseudogenes of nano so if you like these are like shared errors so imagine someone hands you some homework and then if the teacher goes hang on I know that guy's older brother Danny Howard he ended in a very similar piece of homework two years ago now would you know if you copied it but if they had the same typo you know that would be very good evidence though it's been copied or they have a same same source and this is what we're talking about here they've got the same errors in the same location as very hard to explain if evolution is not true but if evolution is true perfectly explained now if you look these are these then an old pseudogenes okay let me just finish this point okay and then come back okay so you can see that they're at the same locations same errors but there's one man of pseudogene so humans have that chimps don't know okay that is nano PA not present in the two pounds VG no now if evolution is true there's one way to explain that and that is nano PA must have become a pseudogene after we split with Tim so now what we can do is use making a top technology and we can see if that's true if evolution is true that must be true so they look for that and this is what they said human an Opie gene is located on human chromosome 15 he is the most recent of the Nano process you don't think exactly as evolution for these by evolution to make a more precise prediction because these pseudogenes some of them are more than 100 million years old they could be only age really but if evolution is true nano PA must be younger than the human tooth split and ICS made to be about six million years ago so we use molecular clock technology and we see how old it is evolution is true it must not be older than 6 million years and here's the estimate here's the paper it says it's between point 9 and 2.5 million years old just as evolution predicts so we could go even further than that because because of that eyes now we know that age we could say this so they've now secrets of the a dearth of genome then we can say what once you've got that genome sequence that way did the animals and humans split from each other and that I'll see research between 400 and 700 thousand years ago so if that's true then it must be the case that Nano PA is in the Neanderthal genome and we don't know this safe by all right it might be true might not be true that evolution is true if humans and chimps share a common ancestor we should find Nana PA in the Neanderthal genome and here's the paper as you can see Nana PA is present in the Neanderthal genome so that's one piece of evidence but we can go I've got loads more but I said if you want to respond all that so the position which arm defending today is that human chimp ancestry it's been projected to the public like this is a fact like this is true and in the way that Phil just explained right now that they have spectacular evidence that is actually true now the case I'm going to be making is quite simple it is that human chimp ancestry is not true literally it is not a fact in the absolute sense in the sense that it doesn't change and that it cannot be corrected due to future information it is a scientific hypothesis which is based on a probabilistic framework which has assumptions and they can be whole disputes about it now let's just go back to your first slide because you said a lot of things on a deal with each one out of time right so let's go back to your first flight so and the way we're gonna do this is that once he makes a point then I'm gonna address those points and then he can carry on make new points okay go back mine yeah hey first like yeah first like you first like you first ok right so just give me a second sure so the first thing that Phil did and I think this is very important is that he basically said this is the evidence for human chimp ancestry he spoke about genetics paleontology archaeology biogeography right now these are different different fields now the first point to make is any scientific conclusion in any scientific field can be revised based upon new information so for example you are mentioning about pseudogenes another piece of evidence which was used apart from pseudogenes was junk DNA junk DNA was used as evidence that we have natural selection responsible for leaving behind all this extra junk natural selection the way it works is it's a very wasteful process it's a process which punishes for you know it rewards for a slight incremental advantage and it punishes for something which is wasteful now when he actually comes to junk DNA we later on discovered that that wasn't actually junk much of it was actually functional so if you're in a point at something in genetics whether it's pseudogenes or junk DNA or something else the same principle applies the problem of induction is a reason why we can't say that it's absolutely true now about these particular fields so where there is genetics biochemistry linguistics biogeography Anatomy or the fossil record each of these when it comes to human chimp ancestry this is still based upon homology the homology is the assumption that similarities whether a genetic or anatomical or biochemical level are due to common ancestry that is an assumption now for someone to say that it is a fact what they're basically doing is they're assuming that there is an argument to be made now the argument which is actually put forward goals like this and I want Phil to tell me whether he agrees with this argument similarities are due to common descent Hey look similarities exist therefore we have evidence of human chimp ancestry or therefore we have evidence of homology being true do you agree with this argument you know no one in evolutionary biology thinks that right okay it's just ridiculous so you don't believe it's a fact then no I I believe human commentary is a fact but it's not a fact just because she was in terms of similar no one no one is saying that's fine right no one is saying because they're similar therefore they have a common as short so they are back if you look if you listen to what I said we're actually looking at the dissimilarities as well as a similarity or there are subtle patterns between similarities and dissimilarities if you take nan OPA nan OPA is not in the chimp genome right we don't right so we're not just talking about similarities we're talking about the dissimilarities as well but there are consequences of the similarities and the dissimilarities their work the way you assess this is if the theory makes a number of precise predictions and then using very parsimonious assumptions yep then again and again if you keep finding that the predictions are found by the evidence then then you say that here is true okay now let me just go I asked a particular question which is I summarized what you said there in an argument I want you to tell me on this arguments correct boys emigrate if I understood what you said correct then maybe I misunderstood you but why as I am join me to repeat the argument no okay I would say what I understood you to be saying you were saying that was based on an assumption of homology yeah and that's false that's not true at all okay okay let me let me tell you human chimpanzee is not based on homology it's not based on an assumption of homology it's not based on the assumption of homology okay so based off of ever shot okay so tell me we don't start with the assumption technology and then conclude apology of course not okay right here's the thing when you go out in the world and you look for a genetic similarity between humans and chimps yes for an anatomical similarity or a similarity dissimilarity well it's okay whatever yeah why are you basically looking for okay we're looking for evidence of common descent based on based on the predictions of that theory makes and what's the predictions okay I just gave some predict short right okay no no homology is the conclusion it's not no no not homology is an assumption okay no it isn't okay let me let me just explain to you why is it okay right okay because we have we have some traits that are similar to Kosovo Balaji right we also have some traits that are not due to homology find this emergent evolution yeah other places the cladistic term but a more general term would be convergent evolution is the different ranges to term okay but the point is the same Ryan are some how is it different okay so when you have convergent evolution you are assuming that that that common ancestry is actually true right well okay I mean yes so when it comes to the initial point which I made which is that you begin off with an assumption and that assumption is assumption of homology and then you look for similarities with the similarities you're saying homology is a conclusion I'm saying homology is an assumption now I'll give you evidence why it is actually an assumption and not a conclusion Erasmus Darwin Darwin's grandfather he believed human chimp ancestry he believed in it okay now what was his evidence for human chimp ancestry I will know he had any evidence – here is your answer see I didn't know harassment said that well maybe he did I don't know okay I wouldn't have thought as much okay now going back to the Enlightenment and many of the thinkers of the Enlightenment just like Erasmus they believed in human chimp ancestry true to be true as well and this goes all the way back approximately 3,000 years to the ancient Indian philosophers in the Indus Valley all of these people including the Greeks the early Greeks as well they believed in human chimp ancestry as well human primary ancestry this was based on the assumption of homology now what Darwin did is he came along and he put fuel on the fire by giving them a mechanism a mechanism by which you can have transformation so homology is an assumption and for that assumption for human right once again human chimp ancestry for it to be taken as true you need to have an argument the best argument that you've given me so far I've summarized and you need to tell me whether you disagree with the premises or whether you disagree the premise is leading to the conclusion Islam is religion for the benefit what one asking what they repeat it for the benefit of the crowd here similarities are due to common ancestry that's an assumption heylook similarities exist whether it's a pseudogene whether it's something in genetics where there is something in linguistics or whatever therefore common ancestry is true I want you tell me do you disagree with the premises or the conclusion okay what I would say is I disagree with your premises okay you don't start I think there may have been people let me finish right so it's certainly true there are people that thought human chimp common ancestry were true before we have the evidence that's true okay but when you go and do the genetic tests right when you do the genetic tests you don't know what the answer is the genetic tests give you an answer though okay so you can go in there experiment you can do that experiment without any presupposition about whether human and should have a common ancestor or whether they don't so if you give take the example I gave notice that the board did not really counter any of the evidence I naturally presented hang on place a little right okay I said if evolution is true then we should find that man OPA is the youngest of all the nano feet with an absolute og which is harmonic okay like the homology doesn't tell you which of those nano teaser are the youngest doesn't yeah but you're using Hornady it doesn't tell you which are the youngest it can't tell you a date look does it Phil you're making an argument which is that genetics has given us something new it's not me giving the argument this is what this is one of the people on the chimpanzee genome consortium say okay it's just don't make this about me right this is your interpretation or what this okay with this I mean it's damn clear okay it's all filled tummy this egg sac he'll early confer sure so that's what okay okay that's not that's not what they say yeah this is what they forget one second I'm sorry I put it back that just so you can you tell me what they read that out or eat down read out where it's just more than a century ago what paper isness this is I told you initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome in comparison and what is that what is that comparison which is nology liver you're comparing you're comparing to see whether homology is true or not you know the data could come back not good yeah but hang on why is it is it true folks that the data could come back and say not my mother you you put the cart before the horse let me clean okay let me explain what's going on here when you go out and look in the world yeah there's no such thing as looking at scientific evidence observations and then coming up with a hypothesis that doesn't exist you don't go out in the world look for observations and come up with a scientific hypothesis no what you do is you start off with a hypothesis and then you go out and look fabulous birth wave that's so give you example Darwin Darwin himself what he basically said is this he said if science doesn't proceed by beginning off with a hypothesis and then looking for evidence then you might as well go to a quarry and count pebbles now this issue is oh it's a well understood problem the philosophy of science that you have the theory ladyness of observation because of this issue now when you are doing a study like this and you say we've come to a conclusion that conclusion starts off with an assumption as it does in the title of the paper which is the assumption of homology comparison so that's full comparison complete they're comparing so I'm pairing up what are comparing me in the tree or the comparing humans into humans into which is homology no that's not homology no it isn't because homology is okay let's explain to those people that are familiar right homology is defined well it's the definition of homology has changed over time okay so before it was just similarity okay now we think it's similarity due to comment descent that's how the homology is it really underdone that's not quite true let me finish right okay but that is this is the important point the important every point in point very low kasama trivial right someone that's okay right so the point is there's nothing in the fight another paper that that says anything about homology is what I read the titling initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison comparison comparison of the norms in homology okay no it's not because you're comparing two you might if if they're homologous then we look to see let's take the example I gave we look to see if they're homologous then nano pH should be the youngest of the pseudogenes yeah we don't know that ahead of time you have two molecular clock data yeah and then we see is it homologous or is it neurologists okay it's not decided ahead of time yeah there would be a song in is there though okay yes yeah and that's options so you previously said it's a conclusion on assumption no no I'm saying what I'm saying is it was constrain what I'm saying monk why I'm saying is is that you don't you don't come you don't just derive homology from an assumption of homology what I said that'll make any sense for what I said was is that you derive common ancestry from the evidence not just from the assumption of common answer okay okay I'm not saying no one ever came they were short shorts obviously they did let's delve down to genetics okay do you think genetics gives evidence for human chimp ancestry to be true literally what you mean by true literally forget that do you think it's evidence yes if apart from homology it's spectacularly okay so tell me this is that anything apart from homology his genetics has it taught us anything apart from homology well of course it is it supposes lots of me in terms of human chimp ancestry it sounds of human ancestry what is taught us is that here visiting share a common answer no that's incorrect let me give you evidence for no it's not let me let me give you exactly what a lot of the people in the mail tonight and that's what the evidence no exact that's not sure to let me give you let me give you evidence this is the same problem that Aaron raw came up with right he thought genetics was something different to homology right like it bought something new in but you have to to put it this way a scientist walks into a lab he walks in with the certain assumptions and one of the assumptions is that of homology that is a given assumption before you even enter the lab right now that assumption does not change because of something you observe it is still an assumption yeah but you can invalidate the assumption via observations ethernal PA was not the youngest of the pseudogenes right that would be evidence against the assumption or common as okay you agree or disagree let me answer that do you agree what disagree but what day of the week is it yes or no let me break down your question serious question if you turned out the Nano PA was not the youngest of the pseudogenes if it was a hundred million years old that would be very strong evidence against you in command here is it no no he wouldn't tell you why because homology the idea that humans are they did not come in the history of the world by themselves de novo they are linked to something else primates or whatever this is a basic assumption of science and there is no piece of evidence that can go against stuff how is that how would that be how would that not be evidence against it you haven't explained anything you states none of them let me explain why and this is linked to my previous point which I was about to make about genetics so science begins off with methodological naturalism which is the idea that anything that we look at we are going to assume there is a natural explanation for it so when you look at me and you a blade of grass or Lady gaga they're gonna assume we're gonna have a naturalistic explanation for us correct do you agree with me so far I think the others like okay so you carry on okay but I'm gonna make a blanket statement you can challenge it afterwards which is it go that is the very crux of the scientific method methodological naturalism so methodological naturalism means that anything a scientist revolutionary biology studies they're going to assume that they has a natural explanation because of that human beings and chimpanzees or human beings or something if chimpanzees the primates didn't exist right if something else existed which was I don't know what have pigs whatever right we would always be linked to something which is non-human simply because of that assumption of methodological naturalism so there is no piece of evidence which can go against that foundational assumption of science okay fine that's maybe one more point which is this you're saying genetics has added something new which is exactly what you are saying which is why I'm disagreeing with both of you at the moment genetics all it tells you is that you have this particular field just like all the rest of the fields in which you have an assumption of homology that's all you actually have now let me let me give you some evidence for this Jonathan marks he's the atheist given who shri biologist and you can check this out yourself he believes human chimp ancestry is true he's an atheist so for him foundationally human beings have to be linked to something else in life yet he in his book which is published by Oxford University called evolutionary anthropology a new introduction by our alternative introduction he says about homology he says what is genetic what is what as genetics actually taught us from there from the time of Linnaeus which is prior Darwin in terms of genetics he says absolutely nothing it can give us new information but it doesn't change the foundational assumption of homology homology is an assumption and genetics doesn't make it into a conclusion it is still an assumption and it'll remain an assumption whether you bring out your evidence from genetics or Anatomy or biochemistry or the fossil record or linguistics so let me let me respond I think what is the goal saying is completely we don't have to assume on naturalism that humans are related to chimps and I'll explain why because there was a popular belief goes back to the ancient Greeks I think it was an activist at dream up with it and it was only this room actually same year I think as your ago it was 1859 right called spontaneous creation Aristotle believes in this okay and it was popular up until the 19th century where there was considered that species spontaneously were created you know out of nonliving matter right so on that now that's a pilot that could be a perfectly naturalistic scenario okay you don't have to believe in God to believe in separate creation you could have a naturalistic central creation for all the different species okay so there's nothing at all about naturalism that forces you into conclusions that him viewers and tips have to be related they don't know what way on everything short short they don't have to be related based off of naturally okay okay so naturalism doesn't point force you into that conclusion sure but what forces you into the conclusion is the evidence okay that evidence now notice since the ball has not really sick any specific problem with the evidence other than a general criticism though space often actually but as we've seen no no no as I said naturalism and then homology okay but again again you don't have to from the outset you can do a test the test will tell you you could say I start off with the Assumption mirrors and chips are not related and then I will look at you could stupid dude okay so John so tell me this in fact in fact just to show you how wrong you are summers when the first people started looking for hominid fossils right they didn't necessary assume it was with chips okay some people thought that acquiring the time was the closest okay and so now of course I accepted that that's that would be a naturalistic and that's homology to it but my point is the evidence can check whatever your assumption you stopped me right the evidence can then update okay what you start with salt right so the evidence could could contradict what your belief that humans and chimps share a common humanity make three points I need to address pain okay you admit they does start with an assumption okay what I'm saying is you don't have to start with any asan that's fine but you just admitted right now that you do start with an assumption of the monitor okay okay will you say you what do you mean by you as in as an evolutionary biologist or a naturalist or some dealers looking at this you start off with the assumption of homology okay if you're an evolutionary biologist then you will believe in the malla g5 + D however and we do start up with it you start off with it if you start ok we would depends what you mean right ok let me finish let me the Miller to that point you don't have to start off with this if you're an evolutionary biologist you don't have to start with the assumption that humans and chimps share a common recently recent common ancestor ok we do agree with that no no no I don't you've done it now I don't do it up because for the first ok you may choose me but also as a natural you don't have to believe it but you've set you three points which are unrelated so I need to dissect each one ok ok so firstly when you said as a scientist you don't need to start off with methodological naturalism that's ok no I didn't say that what I said was if you if you believe in naturalism you don't have to believe in evolution you could believe in spontaneous creation now something that's not a point I made though that's very easy because what you said what you said was that if you put if you're a naturalist you start with method all of the naturalism you have to believe in that we have some kind of common ancestry with other animals that's what you said and that statement is full did you making a few points on there to make notes that's fine sorry yeah gone ok so my point was you said that is long as you're a naturalist you have to believe that we share common ancestry with other animals that you yeah and that's false do you have a you you have to believe you have to believe in some naturalistic beginning of a human being right yeah but it doesn't have to be with common ancestry with it with other Apes does it yeah but I don't have to have ecology with chimps yeah I know that's the most but that's the most popular view because he evidence no no no no no no way it wasn't always okay so – two points here so what would you say about somebody who says that all you need is okay all you need in terms of evidence yeah so all you need in terms of a beginning is just the first sort of spark the first or luck and from that you can explain a purely naturalistic story of all human beings basically having a common ancestor right what do you think of that idea for your data back in each idea initially backed up with evidence sure sure okay now and it turns the image in common ancestry we have overwhelming evidence for that we have multiple independent lines of evidence and then that's all based on the assumption of homology that's the point I make you know they'd know that's the whole point you say it's based on the assumption homology and that is just completely and utterly false okay right now that's not to say that people don't have assumptions of homology but the evidence the text they are not based of an assumption of homology they are independent of what you start off with your something you could assume if you went into that lab the human and chimps were not sharing common Tristan I'm your glasses okay can you have my watch glasses I'm gonna demonstrate a point do you mind if I wear them okay let me just wear your glasses for something I won't you tell me something right yeah so I'm wearing your glasses right now yeah since I'm wearing your glasses am i affected by the lens and wherever I go is this lens going to be all encompassing in terms of YC well depends what you mean by see if you mean visually because people use seeing as perception right no just junctures what it is no no hearing is perception you know there's a Touch's perception so in terms of your visual outlook of course it's going through the lens of a fine yeah good now as a scientist the point which are making is whatever field you look at whether you are a biochemist a geneticist and an anatomist linguist evolutionary psychologists you have the assumption of methodological naturalism and the assumption of homology and that assumption is not something you can put aside and look at the evidence independently because that's not the way that science works that's the point I was making okay hello can I respond right okay so you can't the whole point is you can test your assumptions right you can do you can collect data and see if your assumptions are correct or incorrect so again if you look at the genetic data and you say okay if evolution is true man on PA must be the youngest of all the pseudo gene now that data comes back to you okay what what are you an answer whether it doesn't depend on what you started with okay fine fine they don't have to explain how it is is it just coincidence that nano PA is the youngest okay tell me why why why is it let me wait is it that we share the same mistakes in the same location and then with the one that we don't have happens to be located before the spit so that's why evolution was reduce so he'll me how that let's do some counterfactuals okay so you understand my point okay if they make an assumption that something is going to be there and it is there or if something's going to be there and it's not there it doesn't make a difference to the assumption of homology and it doesn't make a difference to the overall a systemic weighing of human chimp ancestry that's the point I was making I'll give you some evidence for us so we and you we and chimps are supposed to have a recent common ancestor so why is it that if somebody was to use the assumption of homology and then go ahead why is it that the closest to us in human behavior is not actually the chimpanzee is actually the edge pants have warfare and sub Cano makes ants I've actually sociologically according to evolutionary biologists the closest thing to human beings is actually the ant and there's a book on this IO Wilson's the social conquest of the earth right and there's other evolutionary atheists evolutionary biologists who have admitted the closest to the human being in terms of our social capabilities is the ant the closest to human beings in terms of our intellectual capabilities is actually the crow right now that those observations which go against sort of a price or if some before looking at the evidence if someone was to assume if homology is true then this would be true those haven't changed at all the epistemic weighing of human chimp ancestry those dissimilarities why haven't they because the assumption that you begin with is always going to remained an assumption and the similarities that you see you're going to say are due to common ancestry the dissimilarities you see you're gonna see you're gonna say are due to homo pleasee there is no piece of evidence back in undermine that okay all right so first off the statement that humans and ants are the most similar socialize you all you said was that because they have literally just say what was he ever this feather they have warfare ok let me give you some other time well no time one that was warfare correct okay well right look again I get a baby I gave me it's also hot warfare so that seems like pretty weak okay one second so let me explain how sociology works I think you've made a misrepresentation here of course they both have warfare right except in ant colonies and this isn't according to me this is according to the evolutionary biologists who study this in ant colonies you have massive warfare where millions of ants go out and they fight and not only do they go out and fight you actually have ants which go out and apply medicine to the ants which actually injured now the complex level of warfare the ants have is totally different to human at you too cheap warfare now when it comes to human and chimp being similar in terms of the sociological behavior and humans in ants actually being closer than humans and chimps this is not something offset this is something even Lucien Airy biologists have come to the conclusion often of course those conclusions can be revised based on new data but that's the conclusion that they've actually come to now Henry G he's a atheist evolutionary biologist is not a knight if you're wrong he is anything no he is and I call your quote from you thoroughly ok he's your role he is an atheist eeveelution apologist he's based here ok we can deal with an atheist or not later let's deal with his point here his point here is this in his book and accidental species talking about us he writes in that book that humans and ants are the closest sociologically and he's the senior editor of nature no he isn't he's not the senior editor of nature Henry G right okay I'll tell you why because Nature doesn't have a senior editor it has a whole bunch of senior okay and you're Chris quoting him let me give you a quote from here anyway hang on hang on hang on a second what about the point I just meet okay let me respond okay you mean you've been jumping around a lot well so are you jump on you jump on Lobby without dressing you haven't reckon I wear your glasses again because until you until you show me homology until you until I respond you pay you're right okay okay so these are the assumptions of homology and once he shows me that scientists don't have this assumption I'll take them off okay first off he doesn't need your help okay okay first I don't need help first off survive borders muscle I was wrong about Henry G being an atheist Henry G Henry gate sorry this is a direct quote from him I am with the sizes of an earlier age who found that their motivation in advancing the cause of knowledge was to magnify the name of the Creator okay so that was in nature that was that was his own words right he also says right he never he never disputes that he was in chimps share a common ancestor he agrees with that yeah I don't right I know so okay so right and he also agrees that the fossil evidence supports evolution agreed he based on the assumption of homology no this not basic assumptions neurology is based off of the evidence that we actually can I see honestly this guy can I see that can I see that oh yeah sure you can there's the source check it the previews of this new arena greet is one point no time right in another place he said he's an atheist well that's yeah that's why I have I mean and that is well clearly that's not give me your quote that says he's an atheist why I don't have you ridden you right now well but listen without you I that is why oh you want me to memorize every single person why I suggested the debate that we had yeah why suggested the debate we did initially was that we would swap our statements ahead of time because then we can check who's okay but Phil look we're there Henry G is an atheist all he is not an atheist okay how on earth does that change our conversation I've just say no I agree I agree I'm coming to the next place right the point the point is you need to address these glasses okay Henry key right decrees that humans and chips share a common ancestor he agrees that the fossil based on homology no energy say its base of homology says it's based off of the evidence if you look at Henry G and all of evolutionary biologists including philosophers of biology they all have said the same thing which is that we have the assumption of homology in our field and this isn't just about one guy said this or another guy said this look I want you to tell me something right if there is a book which is published by say a reputable publisher which has an atheist philosopher of science or an atheist evolutionary biologist who says a particular thing and then you come here and you say something else different then should I go with what I have in front of me or should I go with what you have you should go with the evidence that's all you should go and the evidence is that whether this is a quote from Henry gate let me read it out to you okay they they had the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species and Henry key organized or here he wrote this about it they had this thing to celebrate that in nature okay and this is what Henry key said the articles in this insight testifies to the success of child Darwin's theory of descent with modification by means of natural selection carefully D Turner's book On the Origin of Species almost 150 years ago the most striking aspects of the theory is its simplicity keeping heritable variation the super abundance of offspring and environmental change natural selection must happen and evolution will follow so he says the assumptions are genetic heritability variation yeah super abundance of offspring yeah and environmental change that's it that's the three things that he says he nurses based on the assumption of homology so he says based on those three assumptions where we hang on hang on hang on a second I know so he says he says it's the Riggin one more quote communicate Darwin would have been safe Darwin would have it taken okay sorry it's on the camera okay so this is another quote from Henry gate in the accidental species a very book that support quote he says Darwin would have been safe had no fossils ever been discovered it remains the case however that fossils provide direct evidence of evolutionary change in our past so where does it say he doesn't have the assumption of homology well where does it wait here where he says that natural selection evolution follows from three things heritable variation yep select super abundance of offspring and environmental okay now what you've done is you've actually committed a fallacy no God you've committed the fallacy of equivocation we are speaking about homology and he's speaking about natural selection now homology is a necessary condition for human chimp ancestry to be true but it is not a sufficient condition for it to be sufficient you need a mechanism and a mechanism in terms of science can never be proven because of the inductive nature of science now what you've done there is you said he is assuming these things but those are the assumptions of natural selection now Henri ghee and any other evolutionary biologists in the world they do actually believe in the assumption of homology and they also prior to that have the assumption of methodological naturalism now Elias sobah who is an atheist again evolutionary biologist immunity he's an atheist we can do with that too he's an atheist evolutionary biologist in his book evidence and evolution which is published by Oxford by Cambridge University he says the idea that humans and chimps must share a common ancestor because they're so similar and humans and mushrooms must share a must have independent ancestry because they're so different they both naive because within a probabilistic framework there is no must and he goes on in that same very book speaking about homology homer plessy and the ad hoc rationalizations which do actually exist in the field of even sri balaji always not wait hang on one second one second so I want you to do is this I want you to show me that scientists don't begin off with the assumption of homology don't take a word of a scientist out of context I wanted to show me as a field they don't begin off with the assumption of homology and two I want you to show me how is possible to have a conversation about homology without speaking about the mechanism because if you can show all the similarities between humans and chimps humans and pigs humans and whatever if there is no mechanism of transformation all you have is a story which is why and this is the last point I'm gonna make you can try and refute all these points human chimp ancestry was something which the ancient Greeks believed in the ancient Hindus believed in the end the Enlightenment Victorian thinkers also believed in including Darwin and his grandfather the reason why this idea took off is because Darwin gave a mechanism the mechanism of natural selection if the mechanism breaks or if the mechanism is shown to be insufficient you cannot claim human chimp ancestry is true okay because without the mechanism it's like you have a bridge and you have two foundations the foundations break and you want to cross the bridge you cannot Darwin's theory is not theory about similarities of similarity it's a theory about natural selection leading eh-2-zed okay all right so what support did was totally and utterly missed by Elias sobah okay so what he said was true the Elias sobah says you can't just look at similarities and then derive common ancestry that's naive and I agree with that I agree with that right from the start right but what Elliot so good knows on to say no way goes on to say was and this is a direct quote you can look this up in that very book the torpedo shape founded sharks and dolphins does not provide strong evidence for their having common ancestor a common ancestor natural selection favors this shape in large aquatic predators so we'd expect it to be present in modern sharks and dolphins regardless of whether they have a common ancestor in contrast the gill slits found on human embryos and in many fish are evidence of a common ancestor precisely because they have no adaptive utility in human embryos the term vestige ago festival carries the double meaning that darwin intended intended best achill traits are useless to the organism and they are vestiges of a bygone age by recognizing they are useless we see they provide substantial information about the past now this is the point it's true that you can't just look at similarities and then say right that's down to common ancestry that's homology you have to do things are more sophisticated than that let me give you another piece of evidence to show you how okay so let me go back to my little presentation here okay so let's let's go to something called amino acid function s stick to Elliott Sobers point cuz I don't want you to make a point and move on no no no that's a separate point I'm here all day let's do at that point how does that one remark I hear all day well I am okay so how does that undermine the point which I made of I think okay because you missed quite any assault how are you you've responded him because our Elliott Soper said was you can't just look at similarities and then say okay that's down to common ancestry and I agree with that none of us said afterwards with that if you look at similarities in functional things that might be down to common ancestry might not be but if you look at similarities in non-functional things then you can conclude common ancestry that's what Elliott sofa says Elliott sober is very clear okay you all quoting him to say on car it's a really strange situation where somebody says you are misquoting this person and then when they are explaining how you're misquoting that person they misquote them themselves how did I miss my here's exactly or Elias sobah said he said the idea that humans in chimpanzees have a common ancestor it's the idea that they must have a common ancestor because they're so similar and the idea that humans and mushrooms must have independent ancestry because they're so different both of these are naive because they are based on a probabilistic framework and within a probabilistic framework there is no must in either case he is describing homology as an assumption and that assumption of homology fits into a probabilistic framework which also has other assumptions such as a mechanism of natural selection which also has other assumptions such as gradualism and vertical gene transfer and so on and so on so what I said there he did not undermine but what he's describing later only is sober what he's basically saying is that you cannot claim human chimp ancestry is true literally if the must because it's still based on probabilistic framework which is exactly what I was saying ok ok let me respond let me respond right what a sofa is saying is that you can't just look at the similarities and conclude commoners you're totally agree with that no one is doing that let me show you how we do this ok here's another piece of evidence ok this is called amino acid functional redundancy so if you look at amino acid sequences right you can have different amino acid sequences give you the same functional protein you feel I imagine if you get dealt with some cards right those you get down for aces ok yeah I've got a strong hand here right doesn't matter what order the Aces are in does it doesn't matter whether you buy the ace of diamonds first of the ace of spade makes no difference right so similarly in proteins you can have different sequences of amino acids give you the same functional proteins ok so there are proteins called ubiquitous proteins that are shared throughout all living things so an example is something called cytochrome C okay so the cytochrome C you can have different amino acids and they will have the same function how do we know this because an etic engineers have actually taken the cytochrome C of humans which has a different amino acid sequence put it in yeast and found it works just as well ok so there's no reason for the amino acid sequence to be the same unless I have common ancestry so here is a table comparing amino acid sequences right of different species and what you see what Amala G what you see is that here is and chips see the amino acid sequence of slides ago seen is absolutely identical not a single difference yeah now as you go to other species mammal other mammals they're pretty similar but not identical now what evolution would predict is they get less and less similar as you go to their solution to a species so if you go to yeast you see very very you're making no let me finish right now the point and it's the point at Elliott's over himself makes is that if you look at something that's functional if you just looked at our other proteins similar yes you cannot do you cannot derive common ancestry for that because they're functional but the amino acid sequence is not functional you can have any you have huge number of amino acid sequences right now what's the point you know support is its base of probabilistic reasoning that is not even a serious objection because you have to say what are the probabilities right I mean if you say this thing has one in two chance and this thing has one in a zillion chance they're not the same right okay let me finish the point let me finish the point right so why is it probability this was done they calculated the probability of this problem happening if evolution is not true and what they said was the probability of that happening of evolution is not true is one times 10 to the power 93 so when he says it's based off a little more than the number of atoms in the universe right so when he says it's based off probabilistic reasoning that's not even the size of those it sounds like so you'd have to be crazy not to okay okay so tell me this yeah since you're saying let's go by probabilities the first point which I want to highlight here is earlier you were speaking about it being a fact it being true and now at least we've evolved in the sense that we're now speaking about a probabilistic framework and we're speaking about assumptions I didn't interrupt you for almost like five minutes okay so let me just deal with some points so the first point is this earlier in the conversation and we have the video here you weren't speaking about actual probabilities you are saying is true overwhelming evidence bloody bloody block okay now we've got to a point where you're now speaking about a probabilistic framework and you are admitting homology because when you're speaking about look at this and look at this and look therefore it's similar you are basically accepting homology as an assumption within that now when you take a particular quote and you say look you have this particular sequence and you have this particular sequence and the chances of these sequences being converging randomly is this I'll ask you some questions about this because I'm pretty sure you are clueless about this what's the null hypothesis here the null hypothesis would be the amino acid sequences would be randomly distributed ah-ha-ha-ha here's that here's the point and this just goes to show how ignorant people like him are null hypothesis is that you will have randomness why the hell would he have there's a null hypothesis because anything is better than that anything what do you whenever we hang one second your null hypothesis if it's randomness and you have something which is similar anything is going to be better than this okay you're not getting it okay so the hypothesis is that whose and chimps would have a more similar amino acid sequence in humans and dogs and humans and dogs will have a more similar to amino acid sequences than humans and fish Baylor he was a fish would have a more similar amino acid sequence than he was in yeast because what we observed which is wider which your my point is is that there's no relationship oh you've spoken for quite awhile let me show you so sorry let's not speak about dogs and fish let's stick to the initial point which was about the null hypothesis being a random yeah okay I want you to tell me firstly this why is it random first point secondly when it comes to two things being anatomically similar which idiot would come up with an idea that their genetics would not also be similar rather than being random okay all right first first special friends right what kind of a thinking is that that chimp looks similar anatomically to that human compared to that those two birds so I'm going to assume anatomically they're similar but the null hypothesis when I'm using the assumption of homology is there this one is going to be random you have that makes absolutely no point you haven't made understood the going so long cause now time okay you have a notice to the point right okay so let's suppose you look at him as you look at chimps you say they're anatomically similar so you might say okay they might lead me to the hypothesis that they share common errors and more recent common errors down humans and dogs right then you look at things like the amino acid functional redundancies and you see does the data confirm the hypothesis or disconfirm the hypothesis now support asked what about randomness if it's the case there's no reason if evolution is false why the relationships couldn't be entirely random there's no reason for those amino acid sequences to be highly similar if evolution is fought they look similar so I would Olivia look are you've missed the whole point amino acid better tell you calm down didn't understand at all right because if you change the amino acid sequence you get the same functional protein that's why suppor there's the whole point and that is why the leading scientist in the field say this is spectacular evidence ok you can agree with him back doesn't Ruth is not based on consensus here let me just hang on science waving okay I have something talking on the right yes well one second yeah let me isn't one that's not calling a thing someone that would be nice well actually according to your worldview it's all matter anyway so doesn't matter it doesn't mean that we're not people okay no people people identity makes no sense Andre okay he's happy with that okay fine he's happy okay let me address the point you said about probability hang on hang on I'm interesting your point that my even a chance to respond okay sure okay but he say he said he said right dice not a fact because it's probabilistic ludicrous thing to say anything he's contradicting himself he's contradicting himself let me give you a quote that sabore actually said on his video okay he said on his video about hidden assumptions alright let me see if I can dig up the pros let's light it hit let's get the quote but he say now it gives an example of crime the crime being committed and criminal TV show and he says this he says finally near the end of the show they discovered the crucial piece of information that was missing they have DNA of the intruder who broke into the house who committed the murder right program over we know for certain that the person committed the murder and because we have the key piece of information now is a level of certainty that Darwinists warned us to have when it comes to human ancestry I get the dandy all night so that's the correct quote from support okay right now wait hang on hang on let me finish it boy I agree with that let me finish a point please but why does that why does that point undermine while said I tell you why it does because when you get DNA evidence of a crime what actually happens is they give you what's called their match probability it's probabilistic they say the chances of the DNA matching and the criteria in forensics is one in a million they say okay if it's one in a billion or more then it's a match the DNA is that short for some hypothesis he'll probabilistic it's still probabilistic you can't say because it's probabilistic it's not a fact okay this is what happens in all of science so supposed in a reject evolution he has to reject pretty but hang on I never said I reject evolution right you AJ here a trip coming as yes I do right I don't reject evolution there's a difference that's not the point we're debating Sabourin nobody you said I reject evolution which I don't well you would say hemorrhage him common ancestry that is the point right and you've said that there's a problem that it's based on problems you do you do you do understand we're wise about that in size in general this is what we do when the Higgs was discovered when this was a scary they said okay we've got five sigma certainty what does that mean it means that when we collect the data we say the chances of that day are happening by by pure chance are one in three and a half million that's what five Sigma means and that in physics is considered a discovery we've done it we've got enough data there's there all of knowledge all of human knowledge has uncertainty advantage right all of human knowledge so whether it's a philosophical argument where there is physical theory whatever and there's always some a certain level of uncertainty in a criminal trial you don't ask someone to be proven beyond all doubt but beyond all reasonable down a different short because this point the Yetta point where the level of uncertainty whilst not zero is so low that you'd be completely and utterly unreasonable not to follow through on the evidence you have and if you get a probability like something like 1 times 10 to the power 19 going on the level of uncertainty and that is so low that you might you call it a fact that's the right thing to do okay so my second if I make up a hypothesis which is this I'm going to walk down that road and when I'm going to walk down that road hypothesis that I have is that what's the probability of me being hit by lightning in comparison to another null hypothesis and the null hypothesis is the hypothesis that as I'm walking down that road I get mugged by Lady gaga then Madonna comes and gives me a punch in the face then birds come and pluck at me and they fly away according to that according to that ridiculous null hypothesis the probability of me being hit by lightning is very very high so what Phil's done here is a very fantastic thing which is this he said this probability is so improbable that this is going to be the result he didn't tell us the null hypothesis so I said to him what's the null hypothesis he said random and then I asked him a follow-up question if two things look similar why would you assume when you look at their genetics there's going to be randomness as the null hypothesis so those probabilities that is coming up with are meaningless to when it comes to his earlier point that he made about Elias sobah Elias sobah is a philosopher of biology and he admits like all philosophers or biology at men and maybe Phil he's supposed to have some sort contact with scientists maybe you can bring to me a philosopher of science or in evolutionary biologists who is willing to say because he's going to be one in a million who's willing to say scientists don't begin off with the assumption of homology or that science doesn't begin with a hypothesis which it actually does now what Phil believes and this is his deeply held belief that prior prior to Darwin and even up till recently before we had genetics all we had was human chimp similarity right just them looking anatomically similar genetics did something amazing that's what he believes now I want to ask Phil not just genetics is that the fossil record at the time but we've already spoken about genetics now now Phil I want to ask him in front of everyone does he believe genetics changed the conversation on homology well what I believe is that genetics gave us as as the paper in nature said spectacular confirmation of human chimp common ancestor did it's not me speaking that is the chip Multi genome consortium speaking that was a stylee assumption of homology based on our null hypothesis of randomness okay what are you talking about when you look at similarities a softer the evidence that's what you fail to understand evidences Bohr is trying to say is that we start off with an assumption of homology and that's what we got no yeah none what we have is testable hypotheses falsifiable hypothesis right that we they're going to collect the data and then the data would either closer by that assumption or confirming okay what the data does is spectacularly confirming liking not like it like it like it confirm like in human and similarity like in human Peter similarity like in human biology unless suppose if they suppose you thought and I don't agree that humans enhancing are the most similar social logically they are right but let's suppose they are let's suppose it's true they suppose it's true okay what we can do we can look for other supporting evidence to see is it true that humans an answer to share the most recent common ancestor we can look at other forms and using the assumption ecology we can look at other forms of evidence and testing so we could look at the genetics between here is an answer and see does it come back confirming that hypothesis or disconfirming okay right and what it would do is disconfirmation that's how you would write and also we can look at the fossil evidence also let's stick to genetics I guess we can do it all that later what piece of evidence what piece of evidence can challenge the assumption of homology in genetics I want you to give me any piece of evidence easy right if if the amino acid sequences between species did not follow evolutionary phylogenetic branchings that would disprove it but hang on that's assuming the similarities is due to common answers though it isn't so what's he assuming okay it's assuming it's assuming that if there are common ancestry homology then he just says he says there's no assumption then he says he assumes I know I'm saying okay let say if I misspoke I'll correct myself okay here is what we do we look at data and see can it confirm a particular hypothesis right or is the null hypothesis made in every case in the null hypothesis randomness right yeah so so which which is just as likely of me walking down there and getting punched by lady gaga and birds coming anymore that's what you've misunderstood okay you've completely got thing I want you always when you gave us down let me respond respond okay you're saying is that the sequences they they what are you saying they have to be similar no they're what what I'm saying let me let me put up my problem with what you were saying earlier you're saying look at this sequence look at this sequence their chances of this sequence being this similar based on the null hypothesis or randomness is this number and that number may be 0.0001 percent which is more than a number of options the universe or whatever what I'm saying is why didn't you initially point out where the null hypothesis was when you were giving us that vietmike one second I'm point dealing with it the difference it makes is that you're telling us the entire story you're not just giving us a part of the story and then when I asked you why the hell would someone make an assumption of a null hypothesis being randomness you haven't given a good enough answer when they when we actually have when we actually have one second when we actually have good anecdotal evidence that if anything the genetics should be similar because the anatomy is similar no not completely wrong you totally dishonest misunderstood it's nothing to do with the similarity in the announcement this is the battery okay right this is once the board just fundamentally doesn't understand about this argument right it's nothing to do with the anatomy right you can't what we've proven is that you can have a completely different amino acid sequence and the same functional protein this is the whole point it does not mean what he's saying is I'll look you as a gypsy got similar anatomy so of course they've got similar amino antiquity and that's just wrong white right I tell you why because if you take out the amino acid sequence you take out the protein from let's say yeast right and put the human protein in there the function of the the cytochrome C is unchanged so you can have any amino acid sequence you like right and you will still have the same functional protein therefore right it doesn't mean you can't conclude that the amino acid sequences would be similar based up Anatomy you cannot conclude that those folks know it is completely a nurse right okay so let me in the next thing while you're wrong when somebody is making a comparison between two different types of say sequences now if two things look similar then why would somebody make the null hypothesis randomness unless you wanted to reconfirm what you already knew now the issue here is this everything we've spoken about so far is based upon genetics you believe genetics is decisive evidence for human chimp answers to yes or no yeah I believe that and so does the or case of the chimp okay sequence paper not just me right so fine fine right this okay okay fine fine a broad consensus point in size in fat but let me challenge you can you show me any papers in it in Oprah's journal as you million hype in papers nature that say humans and chimps don't share a common ancestor can you quote me even one I already told you based on the assumption of homology is that is a hypothesis that is enough paper wait hang on okay wait well looks like we've got time you know I have to go in about 20 minutes okay that's fine no problem you go you've been refuted enough but I'm gonna make one last point okay wait wait one second let me move you both here at the same time because he's been talking a lot let me ask you a question all this time is we speak about genetics and I've been bringing him back to the idea of homology and that genetics adds nothing new to the assumption of homology and nothing new to the evidence of human chimp ancestry being truly truly because this is a philosophical problem not a scientific problem which can be resolved by data right all he's been speaking about his genetics now I want to ask him one particular question do you think genetics has added anything new to the philosophical paradox of homology in home of lazy why I think is that the genetic evidence confirmed from all of those relationships between here isn't it okay let me ask again because he didn't answer at the time of Erasmus Darwin Erasmus Darwin believed in human primate ancestry based on the assumption of homology the soul did so did John Bob steal amok so did the ancient Hindu philosophers based on the assumption of homology genetics has added nothing new to this conversation you say rubbish what do you say I would say it's a niche but there's no eyes or eyesight just I'm your interpretation Monday so buddy okay I know that right okay thanks okay what who is not nobody is the two pens in genome consortium they are not nobody they are the top experts in this field okay and it's not just wine or author this is a consortium all the leading genomic institutes in the world and there's what they say is that the genetic evidence spectacularly confirms common ancestry right now you say it's all about moment so I'm going to give you some pollen no we're not gonna move on from that point why not they are saying they are saying this is evidence based upon their assumption of homology with faith their null hypothesis is randomness like you admitted which is a self confirming our theories right if you have by definition if you've got a null hypothesis the null hypothesis and they're different data not hyper definition it's not self confirming is it because you've gotta know my father likes know if there no hypothesize about AG sensitive if the null hypothesis is absolutely ridiculous like me walking down there and getting mobbed by Lady Gaga in birds knitting around me anything in comparison is going to be highly likely probability now say it's ridiculous now cuz you already demand anything at all about okay now here's the thing all this time all this time phil has been bringing up the idea of genetics all right sweet I wish the fossils okay before we go to fossils then he put the final nail in his coffee okay Jonathan marks who is an atheist evolutionary biologist this is his book what it means to be 98% chimpanzee other species appear to grieve but none weep as humans do and certainly not over imaginary events like those in Les Miserables or love story what does genetics have to say about all of this nothing . shameless Adonis is a philosophical paradox that is not resolved by argument so he dies resolved by argument not by data genetic data tells us precisely what we already knew that humans are both similar and very different from the great apes the exact same point I've been making all this time except I wanted to bring out the call right at the end when he's dug himself in a very dark deep place genetics adds nothing new to the ancient paradox of similarity and dissimilarity okay there's nothing in more equated nothing at all that gives any evidence against humans in common ancestry Waldow author is saying is that humans and chimps have differences no one's disputing that so that is we hang on that is what we call a tie on that hang on ball I didn't interrupt you hi I know I am gonna interrupt to you because you have very little time and on my own and make sure you run enough okay hang on a second we have a good crowd here how many people think that this guy understood what that quo action he said oh I thought you said it wasn't decided by popularity vibe okay it's not walk according to your friend it is come on go with your friend he's not my friend I've never met him before mollies supporting you should be a friend okay wait we don't decide hey one second one second one second I gave him a very direct quote which is this whole time finnish-speaking about genetics as if genetics has added anything new to the ancient problem of homology and homework lazy to the ancient paradox and he dug himself a deep hole by repeatedly speaking about genetics and in that quote Jonathan marks basically says genetics adds nothing new to this philosophical paradox which is resolved by argument not by genetic data and what does he go on to say he says yeah of course he's saying we are different to grapes that's one with Nicole says in the primal problem of this world and that Haslam is this the quote says this very clearly and the thing is phil comes to the park regularly i come to the park regularly we're filming this the crow if you want to say I quote mind no problem go and research it and find me how I call mind a how I took care of this context but very clearly it says this homology homer plessy the philosophical paradox which existed before darwin is not resolved by genetics is resolved by argument so genetics adds according to Jonathan marks and atheist evolution is evolutionary biologists nothing new ok so what is completely misreading it right one second if I'm missing it one second relax if you look at any response now listen he's not your friend buddy defending you a lot so I know one second you can respond but first you said I misquoted him I'm asking you what was the quote were you even listening because I was listening gone what's the what you said what he said was that he was in chimps are different right that they have significant disabilities okay that's what the quote basically said right and that has nothing to do with the question well that the quote was that there's nothing I was rather quote right okay you seem like a absorb bias so an objective object over here so tell us this was that what I said to you about two minutes ago yeah okay that's fine okay what's happy finish if you can if you're not gonna let me finish I'm gonna walk away okay when someone loses their on a walk away so I'm gonna finish gon talk okay fine right okay weather how similar or dissimilar humans and chimps are is not the question for the different so he talks that Gigi approach this guy Jonathan Martin right and he says oh you know humans do this chimps don't do that that's completely and utterly irrelevant to the question of whether humans and chimps share a common ancestor no one is claiming that human shapes right then that is not the claim so suppose argument is a total and utter straw man the question is do humans and chimps share a common ancestor not are humans and chimp identical or how different are humans and chimps in terms of their behaviors we are not claiming humans and chimps are identical we are not claiming the genetic evidence tells us exactly how similar we are to chimps in terms of our behaviors no what we're saying the genetic evidence does is tell us the humans and chimps share a common ancestor and I've asked him for even one paper you know in a high-impact journal like nature that I quoted that says the opposite conclusion and he cannot quote even one what conclusion right what conclusion they hear is in chimps share a common ancestor not they all they all have that conclusion based upon the assumption of homology it's based off of the data and the data is looked at basing the hands on any data that goes the other way wait wait have you got any day to wait hang on hang on one second for the data to go the other way I need a rival null hypothesis but the null hypothesis which you gave is the randomness anything is great gonna be better than randomness no give me a second one second you know what we're hungry a pie but I didn't give you a paper I gave you an evolutionary biologist who's describing the way the field works okay if I misquoted him then tell me this what book did I misquote him from Eliot sober was evolution nope the book is what it means to be 90% chimpanzee okay okay okay okay right you even got a book wrong let me read a different quote yes so you weren't listening not since I've learnt so many responsible it's hard to know which one you hand and wait for you to say I've misquote it you need to give evidence by here's the point why if this do is this you must watch it but what they do themselves is look at this amazing piece of evidence look at this amazing piece of evidence and when I asked him what's the null hypothesis is randomness hang on a second if you're going to give us evidence which is supposed to be conclusive you are misquoting but you don't give the entire story when you don't explain what the null hypothesis is and whether that null hypothesis is actually justified now what he said well Jonathan Marx said it but that I'm misquoting him by he himself has never read the book I'm here you've read this book okay so tell me in this book what does Jonathan marks a genetics has done to the conversation about homology my aisle is a long time very that my recollection was that what he was saying was that the difference between humans and chimps is more than simply there were one or two percent quoted you know naive dissimilar luteinizing that actually know what created the difference between heroes and ships was regulatory changes and had the growth factors in humans human neocortex okay yum read the book I have okay so read this part okay other species appear to enjoy pain we practice read it okay okay okay other species of beats agreed but none we pursue mystery i certainly not emotional events like those in they miserable of so what diseases have to say about all this nothing nothing it's not but that's not the question there is not the questions involving your colleen is completely out can't finish the finish the point sameness other this is a philosophical paratus has resolved by argument not by dated janessa datatel splicing we really need the humans apes are very similar to and different from great that's completely and that's what I've been saying for the last hours I've got a respond to this I've got to respond social right because what he's saying is there are similar a humans and chimps do they have emotions do they we put lay miserab do you know that is not the question that we're asking boomers and chimps could be very very different an emotional level right we we in evolution what we say is that humans have a brain that slay say fourteen hundred CCS chimps is only about I don't know three hundred four hundred cc so what there was was a very large increase in the neocortex of the human right everyone hang on the corporate and right and that quote captures a whole book visible no because and you clearly haven't read it so you don't read the other parts are so has a thing does he say he was in ships different because of acceleration in the growth factors of the neocortex change yes or no I can't think of that may be that may be set aside okay but even if we does say that actually relevant to this point the point I'm making here is I let Phil speak about genetics genetics genetics genetics and here you have an evolutionary biologist saying definite software called paradox is not resolved by genetic data and sameness hardness is a philosophical paradox lies not resolved that's resolved by argument or by data genetic data tells us precisely what we already knew that humans about similar and very different to created nor so questions are answered metics doesn't add genetics doesn't add anything different to what Erasmus that can nothing or true that's that's not true well it is its release new book it's actually true all right I tell you guys about how would it be one second one second let me answer let me on sailor the book is science and human origins this is written by these are Christian it is a book yes well we want a scientific papers or not hang on anyone could publish anything so he wrote something in a journal fill one second one second one second I'm not dealing with this point I'm dealing with the earlier point of the Italian eight yeah I want a reference in a proper peer-reviewed what the existence of this eight and that it was in Italy and it is ten million years old behind that is by Peter and I want it in a proper peer-reviewed journal normally at food then after you actually go to the page right you can't find it well my hung on a second hang on a second if I did find it or if I didn't actually find it it wouldn't make a difference to my overall argument I'm actually making and wish you've admitted that if there is this Italian ape which is ten million years old which is fully by PDO this is a recalcitrant fact but this does not and this reconfirm something I said earlier this does not falsify human chimp ancestry because nothing plant okay he says nothing can falsify the original version because of methodological naturalism and homology okay all right let me just address that point right first off is as we established it's nothing to do with methadone actually because as we could have a purpley naturalistic explanation for human origins that's nothing to do with evolution you could you could be someone that believes these spontaneous creation and people were Aristotle believes a spontaneous creation many other ancient Greeks I think it was an accident okay so the dot is nothing from naturalism that says that humans and chimps have to share a common and and human achieves common ancestry is falsifiable of course any one piece of evidence you know it has to be taken in a context of all the evidence right so it's true that you know you have to look at all the evidence okay multiple lines of evidence if you just found one thing of course you have to look at the broad picture okay a big call a friendly okay yeah I mean we've been going for two hour no I need to give you this reference for us okay okay okay now the point is if it was a case if it were the case that we found that's going back to my original some row how you do human bro need a quick favor hello cat the nano pizza you know that Italia we were speaking about which was discovered in southern Italy falsify was in Aleutian right if we found that here is a yes which is fully piping their amino acid sequence can you what's up me the name and just what's up me where they like some reference where they discovered justify evolution if that grow I need an ace up now into being anything that would go human evolution right okay this let me give you another test right if he wasn't we share a common ancestor right then and what we should find is that the genetic diversity in human populations should be highest at the sense of origin this is called a velocity this is widely accepted in genetics the origin center is where you have the highest energy diversity so so if we found so what we could look at different ethnicities Europeans Eskimos Native Americans have originals whoever and if evolution is true some flower in Africa's should have the highest genetic diversity if it turned out that Eskimos had the highest genetic diversity that would be evidence against seamanship common answer to that would be evidence against you where are we like well if hangout well that's a non-sequitur there's a total non-sexual now if you're assuming and this is a very racist thing by the way that East Africa's where you have the great apes and that's with the black people are so you have the fossil where it hang on it's not right it's hat it is racist and I'll tell you why I'll tell you why because we do actually have fossils which are also in other parts of Asia such as China which could also be interpreted as the beginning of human beings now your argument is a non sequitur wrong ok the load is how many finals were rolling you made your point you made your point let me now sour Africa well that's where then we should find all eyes to be older see the oldest fossil of a recently discovered of a human being is actually in Morocco North a human being yes that's not what we're talking about yes talking about the oldest hominid fossils where Australopithecus is yes where or what it is yes well where all these nothing did no well but your soul it's modern humans you're assuming those are human ancestors well no if they are if that's where human ancestry is then we can confirm it with another piece of evidence that's the point this is what you completely forgive misunderstanding every time so you say oh we're just assuming this we just assume this which is really okay the whole point is the data can't confirm or deny the assumption where we hang on and the coup d'etat overwhelmingly confirms it okay this hill Oh Phil Phil here's the thing the fossils which are found in East Africa those fossils and none of them and here's the point which are making I have been proven to be human chimp and human and human ancestors those those fossils understand we're over hang on second every single one of those fossils that's been discovered those discoveries are based on the assumption of homology and the assumption which is actually made and here's the point here's the point look I'm gonna make it I I'm doing one person out time I love speak to you next you see is assumed to be a human chimp ancestor is supposed to be our recent sort of if you like grandmother because she was discovered in she's discovered in in Africa and she was supposed to be bipedal now I want you to however that Reza's wait hang on why didn't researchers use the 8 which is discovered in southern Italy which is 10 million years old 7 million years older as a human to mr. Martin if it was okay wait it's coming I'm actually riding a friend for it I work I work with some researchers all right it just came in good timing it's called Australopithecus bamboo Lee and here is Journal of human evolution so the point which are is making stands if you look at any fossil that fossil you are based you're using a fossil and you're basing it on an assumption of homology and you're saying that this is a human chimp and system but that assumption is not reconfirmed by you looking at similarities because that argument would be like this that would be like similarities are due to common descent similarities exist therefore similarities are due to common descent but that would actually be circular reasoning widening these researchers use the ape which was discovered in Italy which was a fully bipedal ape and used that as a human ship ancestor because Darwin and the people prior to him they were actually racist and they wanted to show that the black person is much closer to the other primates then their Caucasian people so they didn't use the April Sun in Italy which is ten million years old fully bipedal rather they used an ape which was three million years old one second three million years old which was in southern Africa and here's the point when you believe a theory is true anything is evidence Darwin believed and he said this in the Descent of Man the African people they actually some of them they have C which are aha C which are like this which actually have opposable thumbs which is why black people are good at climbing trees now any black people here self do you have any relatives in Africa who have feet which are like this do you know how many African which has feet like this now why did Darwin describe these Africans were feats like this because he has an idea in his head which he believes to be true which is his actual theory so because he believes it to be true the evidence that he sees anything could actually be evidence also when Darwin went to South America he did the same thing with the South Americans because he believed the white race the Caucasian race was the highest so when he described the fujian people he said these were people they used to grunt they could hardly speak he researchers when they studied those same people around 30 years before Darwin they said this is a sophisticated society which have a language of about 30 thousand words so Darwin he already believed his theory to be true so anything was actually evidence no no no the thing with the last point we trying to make is this no wait hang on hang on hang on hang on the Prophet Muhammad peace any fossil which he brings up is the same as the genetic evidence the same as the anatomical evidence is still based on the assumption over wanted to which by the way and this this thing phil has no addressed at all he has no address this point at all which is homology is a necessary condition to establish human ship ancestry is not sufficient to for it to even or only be sufficient you need a mechanism a mechanism of natural selection or any other mechanism and this whole time he did not speak even the smallest amount about the mechanism without the mechanism our best only how is the story okay okay let me let me read you the paper the sabor thinks is an evidence of bipedal right this is what the paper he just gave me says no no no I give you the paper with the name of that results okay okay results further show that the state codes if it's relatively small petrol official articular facets surface areas and media luxury narrow also compared with modern Hoover's indicating that the morphology of avila Oreo Pittacus sacrum is incompatible with a functional demands and never had mutual bipedal stance and locomotion the Oropeza : dorsal region does not exhibit adaptations for habitual bipedal locomotion one so your own paper contradiction no no no yes it does right now and I didn't it's what I couldn't I got a response gone okay and we've got a wrap-up which we've been in more than two outs okay right I do a piece I didn't interrupt one second one second before you make your point let me just make a simple point this curricular ape this ape it can walk on to you and it doesn't do that all the time it also has locomotion but Lucy was something which they think was transitioning towards actual bipedalism or according to some according to some locals hang on a second according to some hang on according to some is fully by P do whatever he actually is the point which I was actually making is this why would they go with something which is four million years old and not go with something which is ten million years old Akali because they had a previous theory of this right and even if even if there there was no fossil evidence of any hominid which is what you said earlier about Henry he even if there was no fossils human chimp ancestry would still be true which is when you said earlier have independent evidence from knowing I'm independent of inertia of course is based on your function of homology from embryology we have yeah she would be true if we had no photos because out there that's the point comes to the fossil record all of this is based on the assumption of homology and there is nothing new that is added to this by genetics or by the fossil record now here's actual for you the point is that no fossil can be proven to be a human ancestor Hawaii so even if there was no fossils human chimp ancestry would still be believed to be true why ya know at the moment what it was something field is this it's like whack-a-mole you deal with something with genetics and you show how that's not an independent line of reasoning you run off to the fossils when you deal with that you run off with something else so tell me this while I'll be providing indicated no but hang on how can that be independent evidence when I dealt with genetics you ran away to the fossil record and when we're dealing with the fossil record you running off do we have other independent evidence the thing isn't deal with yes I did usually you did you assess you fill it for you to come here you actually want you to have a formal debate we have to I don't know how long the tyranny is something like this so tell me this so tell me this coming this weekend tell me this tell me this tell me if my summary of you is wrong you began off with is true it is actually true and I began off with it is an assumption of homology which cannot be disproven and this is still based on methodological naturalism still based on the idea that even if homology was true it would be a necessary condition for human chimpanzees three not a sufficient one because you still have to have a mechanism of natural selection which you didn't deal with in our conversation it devolved to a point when you admitted the assumption is there you admitted the assumption is there but what you're still trying to do is you're still trying to say the assumption is validated based on probabilities okay why said was that human and chimp common ancestry is a fact and it's a fact because the data overwhelmingly supports and that's not just me saying this is what the human ship the chimpanzee genome consists of so why did I so right why did the surface of science and philosophers apology bother you quoted saying that you can't infer he says you can't say is a must is true and that's the point I was making no support you're not you must be true you don't conclude it because of your sub right you do it because all right and I summarized your argument I summarized your argument which was the similarities are due to common ancestry similarities exist therefore common ancestor is true and this is circular reasoning which you've been doing throughout this two hours but you do realize the original point you devote for me oh we've got customers there are flowers people can watch the discussion and the mechanic they're working they can do for you but I want you to understand something right before we're going over the same thing again and again do you think you vote you do you think your position has actually changed because your position in the beginning and the end was different if misunderstood okay okay here's the thing when we have these circular it is a surprise you're saying we start with an assumption of homology there's no right but in here we have the data and the data can either confirm or deny the hypothesis right and affirms it and that's why it's not a circular argument because the data could easily refute it and that's what you did the data can offer future well well after disagree because because as we pointed out and you disagreed with this we have sociological evidence which is different we also have the fact that even genetically that we have some things in the human and chimp genome which are different but nothing there are not nothing that is the genes are going to be identical well I'm stupid stupid stupid thing – no it's not because no one is saying there's a human genome and the chimp genome are identical so the family there are some differences it's completely exactly because nothing can dis confirm the assumption of homology not true so why does it like that I can I will give you multiple things one nano pho gene is the oldest of the student if that were true that would be disconfirming evidence of human – okay what why why let's deal with that why why because Nano PA is knowing the chips okay okay No we face many ass things okay we're gonna have to give it up just one last Phil Phil one last point similarity in terms of intelligence perspective but this doesn't actually challenge human chimpanzee Street you didn't make your point you made a circular argument the whole time you mean you just made the same circular argument again and again we can discuss this again too the fact of the matter is this all throughout this conversation you first did not want to acknowledge homology was an assumption then you acknowledge there's an assumption then you believed it could be very then you believed it could be verified so in summary why began off with you still haven't challenged which is similarities is due to common descent similarities exist therefore similarities is due to common descent this our best bestest circular reasoning and I don't know I don't see why you're walking away because you want to drop this debate no but so have we no fill the debate no sis no blacksville when we wanted to have this discussion you wanted to have a formal discussion you said you had more credentials than our and raw which I don't know I don't know how you managed to make that conclusion you lie you lie you said I only debate people that have professional qualifications in the field yeah yeah and I pointed out Aaron dra doesn't have those qualification he's us no he doesn't he studied paleontology okay and I have you studied penny ontology have I why are you studying in to believe the new biology so they all arise because he studied entomology he's gonna fight the new it says on his Wikipedia page he studied paleontology I asked him and he's been debating this topic for about 30 years now but your your pain it's you know these new visitor presenting the scientific communities you versus a whole scientific no it's not because we're scientists can you bring me one scientist all scientific paper all the philosophers science or philosophy apology who says homology is not an assumption you begin off with nobody the question is not what a scientist does are you agree they're starting assumptions are there if the if the evidence is based on an assumption and the null hypothesis is something ridiculous and genetics adds nothing new to the conversation that's no way you're misquoting him the whole time you're misquoting you know our common ancestor you're misquoting and phil didn't finish it here okay okay thank you very much okay one of the issues is this when you have atheists like Phil like other atheists they come along and they say look this thing is evidence we have evidence from genetics we are very evidence for anatomy we have evidence from the fossil record we have evidence from bioinformatics oh we have evidence from biochemistry or whatever but each of those is based on an assumption fundamentally and our assumption is the assumption of homology now if you want to say is simply an assumption that's fine but if you say that this assumption is actually true where you're basically doing is you're making a circular argument you're saying similarities that you to common descent similarities exist therefore similarities are due to common descent and that is pure circular reasoning now if you want to say look there is something that can actually challenge it and you want to say look we have this probability that's actually here what is the null hypothesis what is the thing that you're comparing it with is going to be randomness but where did you come up with the idea that die is going to be actually random so what he actually did there is he misrepresented what the scientific or the scientific conclusion was by not explaining fully what the null hypothesis was and how they actually came up with that conclusion and this is one of the fundamental problems where when it comes to actually atheists what they actually do is they give you a a picture of the scientific community which is not true there is no single philosopher of science there is no single philosopher of biology there is no single evolutionary biologists that would deny methodological naturalism and that would deny homology as an assumption and even if even if homology was not just simply an assumption even if it could be validated in some way homology is a necessary condition for human chimp ancestry not a sufficient condition you actually have to have a mechanism because Darwin's theory is not a theory of our similarities it's a series the theory of natural selection how you can get from a monad to a man how you can go from a to actually set you can't just simply make claims and one of the things which atheists love to do is say you've Mis coated this person when they themselves like in this conversation didn't even know what the person actually said and the problem why this exists is because evolutionary biology has been hijacked by people who want to use it as a platform for trying to show why God doesn't exist or atheism is true or this actually undermines the existence of God when anybody who looks at it from an objective point of view will understand science is based on the problem of birth sizes based on induction and you have the problem of induction it's a beautiful method which gives us the technology that we have but it doesn't mean that conclusions that you make based upon a specially conclusions which other about the remote past you can say these things are true in a certain way the assumptions are still there and those assumptions cannot be decisively proven through any form of data some of these things are philosophical paradoxes like homology and homoplasy and these can not actually be proven by data now one of the things which is very important and which is why I come to the park is to show that atheists like film they don't actually represent the scientific community and they always give you partial evidence and we saw a clear clear evidence of that when he gave that statistic but he didn't explain what the null hypothesis was or what the null hypothesis was actually based upon and tried to actually justify that and he worked away now somebody watching this may say well he has the right to walk away actually anybody has the right to walk away from a debate but he asked for this debate and he actually wanted to discuss a very deep topic with all these different things whether it's genetics Anatomy or the fossil record or whatever but he called each one an independent line of evidence but when one it was dealt with he ran off to another as an independent line of evidence but that's like whack-a-mole that's like look it's not here as here it's not yes here the fact of the matter is it's no way it's actually based on the assumption of homology and there is no one piece of evidence that you can actually just say is decisive evidence of human chimp ancestry and another thing which in the debate which came up which i think is very very important which we should actually understand his confirmation bias Darwin actually had a confirmation bias and his confirmation bias was that he believed the African people were closest to the other primates which is why he believes certain traits of African people which weren't actually true an Ernst Haeckel who was a German evolutionary biologist and he was one of the disciples of Darwin and he was also somebody who wrote a book about human chimp ancestry he had a chart that he actually made with different types of human beings with the African black human being being the lowest and being closest to the actual other primates now obviously the highest was the same race that fear actually is the Caucasian race now when Charles Darwin read the book he actually said if I knew that this book was going to be published I would not have published my book The Descent of Man so he clearly held those beliefs now the atheist he was here his don't say when everybody is racist back then you know this is complete nonsense and I explained that Islamically we did we have an ancient tradition which is that all human beings are equal and the only thing that differentiates one human being from another human being is their God consciousness not their race so this whole idea that oh it's okay if he had this confirmation bias because you know everybody at the time of racists that was an actual point the point is he lays confirmation bias dictate his actual scientific study and this is the same case in Africa and the same case in actually South America when he actually visited it Islam is something which cannot be disproven in terms of the existence of God or in terms of human chimp ancestry because of science and people like Phil actually miss represent the scientific evidence and miss Crowe or miss Cole scientists although they themselves misquote studies which was why was exposed today and miss Cole and miss understand what the assumptions actually are and those assumptions are never conclusions those are sanctions remain assumptions he began off with that it's not an assumption he admitted it's an assumption and then he tried to say the assumption is validated to be an actual conclusion everything good I have said it's from God every mistaken from myself I thank you very much for listening Asami

14 thoughts on “Speakers Corner debate about Darwinian Evolution

  1. Ah!! The athiest fairy tale, or as it is more commonly known, the Theory of Evolution. A theory supported entirely by ambiguous evidences and assumptions. A theory which assumes that all life originated from a single-cell lifeform, which was created by random chance, and rather conveniently was created in such a way that it had the ability to make perfect copies of itself and multiply, of course all completely by random chance. A Theory whereby humans and a million other species on this planet came about through completely random mutations supported by the slightly less random process of natural selection. And to think that the atheists have the gaul to accuse religious people of believing in fairy tales.

  2. Assalamu alaikum brother Saboor.

    At 55:32 the Atheist evolutionist claims that changing the amino acid sequence within a protein does not affect the function of the protein. I'm pretty sure he's lying about this. Everything that I've read about this topic says that the change of even one amino acid does indeed change the function of a protein.

  3. 1:43:51

    That is a circuler argument. What Phill was arguing that follows
    P1 Evolution predicts the genetic similarities between Humans and chimps
    P2 Genetic similarities between Humans and chimps exists
    C Therefore evolution is true.
    But he didn't take into account that the first premise has the hidden assumption of homology. So, he basically argues that-
    P1 Similarities are due to common descent. (Assumption of homology)
    P2 Similarities exists between Humans and chimps.
    C Therefore similarities are due to common descent.(Evolutionary theory of human-chimp ancestry)

  4. 1:31:50 This proves what brother Subboor was trying to argue about. A well-confirmed theory is always based on assumptions and confirmed by evidence. But the interpretation of the available data is strictly based on the assumptions you have.

    Thomas Kuhn also puts it as a crucial part of a scientific paradigm. Like I can assume falsification and say that since Hospitals are the survival of the most unfit then, is survival and reproduction false then. This was used against Karl Popper.

    So, it is clear that we need assumptions to even interpret data and come up with a theory. And since we can't just get rid of the whole theory just because a few anomalies wouldn't disprove the whole theory.

    And Thomas Kuhn actually explains that there might be a time when the available data contradicts the well-confirmed theory and you will have a paradigm shift.

  5. 1:16:17 the quote doesn't mean humans and chimps are dissimilar. The quote explicitly says that genetic evidence doesn't add anything new. Because when you look at the data with the assumption of naturalism and homology you have to come up with the same conclusion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *