Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson's Debate with Dr. Herman Mays

hello everyone thank you for tuning in to non sequitur I'm Kyle Curtis I am joined as always by the infamous Stephen McCray hello Steve hello Kyle and we and we have dr. Jensen and dr. Mays with us we will introduce them properly here in just one moment I just wanted to take a quick a couple seconds out Before we jump into things to say thank you to all of those that made this happen it we started back in February and I think was the first time out to dr. Jensen and we we have done a lot of preparation for this this event tonight I think it's gonna be fantastic a great discussion between two very knowledgeable people in in their field and I want to say ace a very special thanks to Melanie Etheridge she was the the lady that I worked with behind the scenes to set this up and I her a great deal of gratitude for making sure that this thing went off smoothly and of course to all of the the tech guys that helped today to make sure that everything was running smoothly and without further ado we're just gonna jump straight into it tonight make sure that after the debate you stick around we have an after show of course the the guests here are invited as always but we will have our in raw Trevor Valley hello gia and John Perry from stated clearly will be with a so that would be about 9:45 to 10 o'clock okay I'm gonna turn it over to Steve to introduce our guest tonight and we will get rolling Thank You Kyle first I want to welcome both you gentlemen to the non-sequitur show I'll be reading both you your BIOS as given to us and then we'll jump right into you just talking about yourself and your presentation so first we have dr. Jensen dr. nathie note' Jensen earned his Bachelors of Science in molecular biology and bioinformatics from University of Wisconsin Parkside and his PhD in cell and environmental biology from Harvard University his few research findings have been presented at regional and national conferences and have been here published in peer-reviewed journals such as blood nature and cell since 2009 he has been actively researching the Origin of Species both at the Institute of Creation Research and an Answers in Genesis we also have dr. Mays with us dr. Herman Mays has Bachelors of Science degree from University of Kentucky in biology with a minor in anthropology and a PhD in biology also from the University of Kentucky his thesis was on genetic meeting system and reproductive behavior of yellow-breasted chat Herrmann went on due to National Science Foundation postdoctoral positions at Auburn University studying behavior and disease ecology and assists a professor position in biology department at southern Georgia Southern University and a seven-year stint as the curator of zoology at the Cincinnati Museum Center where he was in charge of a collection of over a quarter of a million specimens and built a research program and molecular population genetics and systematics in 2014 Herrmann has been a sistent professor of genetics at Marshall universities and university and Hunter ding West Virginia Herrmann has an international collaborative research program involving molecular genetics and genomics to answer basic questions in evolutionary biology he has participated in fieldwork on three continents and the Isle of Hawaii Hawaii including extensive experience studying the birds of East Asia Herman and his collaborators have published nearly 30 papers in peer-reviewed literature in behavioral ecology molecular evolution Milo geography population genetics systematics and genomics including several studies of molecular systematics of the birds of Asia and the Philippines and the first ever draft genome sequence for the Sumatran rhinoceros these public's works have been cited over 1200 times over the past 15 years Herman is also a science educator with a longtime interest in the discussion over creationism versus evolution okay and I believe that prior to the show we all agreed that dr. Jensen would be starting these two rounds are going to be each 25 minutes to introduce themselves and make their case after that we will be to a open format for the remainder of the show and we will be switching screens here in a second so you'll see the presentation mode and the time at the bottom we will let you guys know when you have a minute left so don't mind the interruption and dr. Jason whenever you're ready sir the floor resorption I want to start just by saying as several words of thanks I appreciated the prequel I guess you could say to this debate last night with John Kerry and Shannon Q John Perry bent over backwards to try to make it fair guy obviously doesn't agree with me but the fact that I think he got flack from those who would be his allies shows just how much he tried to be fair and and I really appreciate that so thanks to him and Shannon also asked that we we'd focus on the arguments not a not on strongmen and recommend people engage the work and so this is a real privilege to be able to be on the show and to have it set up that way it's written obviously a complex book replacing Darwin and for them to help bring the audience up to speed is a is very helpful and I'm hoping that we can take it slow one of the main things I took away from last night's was we might be able to we probably be able to complete an analysis of the book in one evening it's it covers so much territory and my hope is we'll be able to engage that even if no one changes our mind but this evening they'll walk away saying okay I understand better why each person holds to what they do so a big thanks to those two last night also to to Steve and Kyle for having me on and to dr. Mayes especially I appreciate him being so willing to engage what I published and give some critical feedback so thank you very much what I want to do in in my presentation is really just give an overview to try to set the context for an ongoing discussion and in a sense hopefully tee it up for dr. Mayes and establish some common ground here what I want to do if you'll go to the next slide actually one of the third slide look at the overview of what I want to accomplish here it's just give some background to who I'm targeting with a book with the type of audience the level of technicality I strove for I wanna then go into some of the historical backgrounds in tonight's debate because I think it's very important to understand what's come before and I think what comes before shows how what we're discussing today is irrelevant and why it's probably different from what most people have heard it's a very different debate we're having tonight then what would what would have happened 40 years ago and I just want to sketch very quickly sort of the big picture points that my book makes without try to to justify them just so people can get a sense for where I'm flowing with my arguments and we'll probably get into the weeds eventually and I have to take several of these debates to go through all these points but just so people have a sense for what I'm going for with the book next slide start with that next slide so my target writers say you get you got to pick one audience tape it to your screen and focus on that and really I'd say with students I tried to broaden it to anyone those who have no background in genetics to those who are very deep in it I had a pastor read through it a draft of this to say hey look I want people who've got no background no training in science be able to understand this so he gave me feedback he's the one who said give me you know include a glossary define your terms these sorts of things but what this book represents said it set next to what my organization does Answers in Genesis is somewhat unique Answers in Genesis largely targets church audiences for those would say yes I believe the Bible is true help me connect the scientific dots this book I've written explicitly for those who say I don't agree with you so give me your best shot and that's the type of argument try to make ten chapters of science and very little on religion and theology philosophy that sort of thing so the two words I keep in mind that I've kept in mind to try to summarize what I'm trying to accomplish in this book is to make it accessible for again anyone to follow and defensible so it's not designed to be a polemic where I engage every counter-argument I feel like that would bog down the text I've put most of that into the endnotes where you get the lot of the nitty-gritty details I tried to get a flowing narrative so you get the sense for what I'm saying and then the the points of disagreement or the the details you'll find a lot of that in the technical endnotes next slide so the scope and the focus and limitations the book our biology and specifically the Origin of Species I'm writing this really trying to just not write the history since Darwin what's happened and why do I think what's happened should lead us to a different view again it's not written to say here's what so-and-so said and here's why he's wrong or she's wrong but let's just walk through what's happened in the fields of science especially biology since then because my training is biology and in genetics I focus very little on geology astronomy I will do very little to defend those fields because that's not my professional training all I can give you as a light person's perspective and here's what so-and-so has told me and so I touch it very little in the book and basically shove it to technical references in the endnotes and you can see as well basically the only time a touch religion philosophy is in the afterword next slide so I main thesis and and we'll go through the outline a bit later in more detail is that there's been three historical events that have come together that I think should cause us to come out it should lead us to a different explanation of the Origin of Species and I picked the title er specifically replacing Darwin what I do in the book is not deal with 1859 science per se I try to deal with 1859 as it's appropriate historically but evolution in its current form Darwin is is a brand name so you got to put something in the title that catches people's attention and I called it replacing Darwin not rebutting Darwin for reasons I'll get into and hopefully I'll be obvious from the history I give and I put in present tense because it's a science book it's not a it's not a polemic of here's what's happened science is always changing this is an ongoing process and that's what I wanted to communicate with the book next slide question a peer-review always comes up I had several creationist PhDs peer review it but my goal in this and my goal continually has been to get critical feedback science advances this is one of the hardest lessons I've learned in graduate school science advances when your hardest critics look at your work and to me the best scientists are those who learn to view their work the most critically it's nothing I learned as an undergraduate so learning to stick your neck out as a hard lesson and so I've sent the book next slide to Jerry Coyne he was actually personally corresponding with him he politely declined to review it next slide PZ Myers has been sent a copy I asked him by email and he never responded next slide Richard Dawkins was sent to copy the book I was actually the UK during a book tour this past June he was personally invited by one student stops her to come out to the talk but declined so next slide that's some of the peer review we've sought next slide we do publish this we have a peer reviewed journal on the Answers in Genesis website we publish critical reviews and one of these that has come up since the book came out was by Stephan from he's a PhD botanist in Denmark his own website you can contact him with his experience find out how it was I think he'd say it was overall positive the only things I think that were changed in his review despite of being critical were some just grammatical things because English is not his first language so to try to make it clear what he's saying next slide you can find my uh my response to that as well next slide he's written response to that and so I'm working on my response to his response to my response to his response to my book or whatever member on now it will see how long it takes so I'm formally inviting anyone who has a critical view of the book or wants to engage the science and here's here's what I think the book goes awry submit a critique we published them I look forward to it this is how my goal is to see the science advance next slide and just jump to a 17 there says slide 17 and I hopefully will also be the start of an ongoing review process and very grateful for dr. Mayes for being willing to to go through the book and and give his critical feedback next slide so that hopefully gives you a sense for some of the big picture on what I was trying to accomplish and what I was not trying to accomplish with this book next slide next slide so what I want to do now is is go back to the 1700s and now write very quickly actually even before that now write very quickly where this debate has come from and hope you can see where it's going and and why I've taken the approach that I've done and why dr. Mayes and I we talk about certain things I'll be talking about tonight so to go all the way back to the Greeks and then to trace science and the study of nature up to the time about the Renaissance and Descartes if you study that you'll realize that the way we do science today is very different from how it was done for about 2,000 years if you can believe it science for from the Greeks till then was basically done by thinking next slide the technical term would be deductive reasoning next slide so to use a very simple illustration deductive reasoning the science by thinking would start with the premise all animals that set must camouflage their appearance let's say that's the premise next slide you might then observe that zebras have an appearance that's black and white stripes next slide and so then using the rules of logic and deductive reasoning you could conclude therefore black and white stripes and zebras serve as camouflage next slide if you're doing science like the Greeks and you run into the peacock you really run into a problem this guy's obviously not displaying his feathers for the purpose of hiding the bushes but for attracting attention to find it mace next slide so the point of this simple example is that this whole method rises and falls on the validity of the premises and if your premise is wrong which appears to be in this case then how can you that your conclusion is correct next slide and then go one further to the zebra so if you look at the literature today the scientific literature into what what is the explanation for the zebra stripes what is their function next slide you actually find four competing hypotheses and continuum disagreement deductive reasoning doesn't give you the answer next slide and to use a more take home example I guess personal example how is deductive reasoning going to help you solve the question of cancer next slide how would you think your way to a solution we know what we want the answer to be that some drugs some treatments and exercise something cures colon cancer pancreatic cancer lung cancer breast cancer you name it next slide we know what we want a sentence right before that to be we want to cancer occurs in some tissue and then next slide what premise though will allow us to deduce this conclusion so if we're living in the era that Greeks the Renaissance or stuck there's nothing that deductive reasoning can give us in terms of an answer next slide fortunately that's not word stayed around the time of Descartes next slide a man named Francis Bacon came along contemporary Descartes and gives us the method of inductive reasoning or science by experimentation next slide so this works or the opposite way it starts with observations very simple observation you zebras again next slide you every one of the kindergarteners will observe zebras have black and white stripes four legs next slide and if you make this observation over and over again next slide eventually you might infer a general principle since you have not used formal logical proofs to reach this conclusion you cannot use the term proof we don't use the term proof in science medical doctors tend to but researchers don't use the term proof because we're not using science by thinking or using science by experimentation this is a statement of probability next slide and to evaluate the probability the frequency with which this occurs and how often it's true you have to use experimental testing next slide so you might go to Africa and just start recording how many times you see zebras with four legs black and white stripes next slide eventually you might find some exceptions and these will force you to go back and revisit the inference you made next slide to use it again this a health example this method science but experimentation is the way the only way we have basically get an answer to cancer you begin with observations here's one that's been made frequently the one that drove my interest in graduate school so cancers have specific DNA mutations and there's reams and reams of papers coming out documenting this next slide this has been made over and over again so much so that we basically have a general rule you could generalize it perhaps all cancers are caused by specific DNA mutations and if you take that a step further and say well maybe we can cure cancer by targeting the specific DNA mutations next slide advance - actually this is this is a way forward but it's not a formal proof the way you evaluate this is by testing next slide and actually go to a slide 48 there one of the rare success stories we've had using this approach is in a form of blood cancer a leukemia so an over a proliferation of white blood cells and chronic myelogenous leukemia one form of it next slide has specific DNA changes the details here really don't matter the point is they have specific mutations that occur next slide and Gleevec targets one of these mutations and we've seen a fair amount of success for this thankfully and hopefully this type of process will lead us to more cures next slide there's one other element in this process the process of science by experimentation that we need to add next slide it comes after Francis Bacon actually from last century Magnum Karl Popper gives us this idea of falsifiability next slide so what's falsifiability it's a really counterintuitive way of thinking that I think many lay people still don't realize took me a long time yet to grasp this so his idea basically says that science is characterized by being able to prove that something is wrong next slide so in a nutshell the inductive method of reasoning starts at observation you make enough observations at least you to general rule and then what you try to do is not prove that your rule is true you try to disprove it and if that rule stands after years and years and years of attempts that extremely disprove it you elevate it to theory to law and so forth so we never talk about certainty or proof in science we're talking about levels of confidence and this sort of thing because of the nature of how science works so let's now apply this next slide to this to the to the origins debate to see how it's worked its way through historically I'm gonna start with Linnaeus in 1859 because Linnaeus gives us this idea of species we're talking about the Origin of Species were basically using a lily in turn and he early in his crew contemporary soccer like this arctic fox next slide creatures like the red fox their coats seem to match their environments next slide and this is just one very simple example but everywhere you go around the globe it seems like the traits of species match their environments next slide so that if you look at where they live and actually go to slide 60 since I'm running short on time on time here the natural inference using things like William Paley's watchmaker analogy if you go to slide 60 the map they're slowing down a way I'll just talk through it seems I've frozen my screen Linnaeus has contemporaries thought that God created the arctic fox for the Arctic the red Fox for Eurasia they were put there for a purpose go to slide 64 to be the Darwin's slide this is the idea that Darwin tries to refute then in 1859 this is in - gonna slide 66 just the map western half earlier we're on show the big red X through it this is the idea Darwin's trying to disprove and he does so very effectively Darwin disproves that God creates species in their current locations that they have not migrated that they have no common ancestry he is using the inductive method basically to accomplish this next slide what many people don't realize and I was sort of shocked to read this to learn this as I read the Origin of Species Darwin was challenging a scientific consensus people held to even though by that time many had embraced millions of years age for the earth they were still thinking in species fixity terms and so Darwin preemptively addressed his critics objections saying why maybe ask him all the most eminent living natural some geologists rejected this view his view of the mutability or change of species so Darwin says I know you're gonna say why does no one agree with you and then he gives four reasons why he thinks it's time to challenge the consensus next slide if you look 10 years later the fifth edition that sentence changes by that time he's won the center of community to his side he's changed the consensus next slide so now I want to set out a timeline very quickly of what happens next so that consensus next slide that he establishes in in 1869 blasts to the present day next slide in the lay community though there's obviously been severe disagreement perhaps most famously illustrated by the Scopes trial next slide a significant event is the centennial celebration in nineteen 1959 where there's renewed interest in the study of evolution and evolutionary research perhaps indirectly ironically next slide around the same time two years later 1961 is the beginning of the modern revival of the unearthed gracious movement and remoras a PhD hydrologist publishes a book the Genesis flood that I think evolutions creationist degree is the catalyst for people like me in our positions today he wrote a book earlier than that though he was on staff chair the engineering department Virginia Tech next slide and he was a crazy Christian and he had Christian students coming to him asking about science in the Bible and he he wrote a book that you might believe in 1946 he said even at that point it's well to observe the bible does not teach the fixity of species next slide he's rejecting this idea this fixity of species and that's probable the original Genesis kind as closely akin to what the modern system it is called the family I don't have time to go through all this it's basically the fact that species could interbreed what I want to show you though is go to slide 79 with Linnaeus this view actually goes back to Linnaeus himself what many people don't know is that Linnaeus started as a species fixity proponent but ended his career saying this that God created as many individuals as there were orders God later mixed these to form General nextslide nature in turn mixed these genre to form species and fate makes these beget varieties so go to slide 82 with foxes so the red fox the arctic fox not only are separate species they belong to separate general next slide so Linnaeus is saying that nature can mix general than the created unit must not be species it must not be genus next slide actually go to slide 85 it must be above that so even as early as the 1700s Laplace is espousing this view Darwin was not aware of this I think it was Lyell who made him aware of it later in life that the Linea had changed his view so now gonna slide 87 I want to I want to focus here on the from 60 to 1980 there's significant events that set the context for what we're discussing tonight so after 1961 the next thing that happens next slide there's enough interest in the Christian community and Morris's work that there's enough PhD scientists who I guess rally to his cause you for the professional society creation research society is formed next slide eventually life becomes difficult from Wars at Virginia Tech so he founds in 1970 the Institute for Creation Research which is where I worked for six years before coming to Answers in Genesis next slide Duane Gish is one of the early allies of Morris PhD biochemist and during the 1970s they do about 100 debates with thousands of students coming out university campuses and then riding up in a very positive way and in my goal here is just to report this fairly I think it's the evolutionists themselves who would say they were very unprepared for this and that's not a criticism that's just I think what's happening is you have so little organized professional creationist opposition to evolution prior to 1961 and I've seen this just looking in the textbooks from the 1950s evolutionary textbooks in 1950s have very little in the way of dealing with creation science because I think there's there's very little national creation science to speak up and so this comes along it's something new it's basically ignored by the professional scientific community once I do enough debates Morrison Gish and there's legislation introduced this this this is a groundswell next slide that that begins to capture the emotions attention I want to focus on what Morrison Gish were doing because I think the reaction to this sets the context for today so Morse's own words and what they try to do and in debates he said they would make four points number one they would show that the fun that said that the fossil record shows that most mac revolution has not occurred in the past point to mutation selection show it's not occurring the present next slide point three Morris is famous for this laws of thermodynamics show that evolution could not occur at all and Gish famous for saying probability shows origin life can't happen so if you've whatever side you're on you've probably heard these things discussed at length especially at the lay level next slide so by the end of the 70s I think there's enough national interest there's legislation that's happening it catches I think the attention the Oulu show community 1981 next slide the National Center for Science education is founded Eugenie Scott or the more famous past presidents next slide you have a watershed trial in 1982 and Arkansas law amended mandating teaching of creation science is challenged in federal court and over turned next slide and this is a watershed for the following reason if you if you look at the number of anti-creationist publications prior to that you see very little around about 1980 after that you see a whole number of them so now evolutionary textbooks have whole chapters dedicated to dealing with creation science arguments next slide so what I want you to see is the reaction to Morrison Gish is very specific so I'll just use a few examples we could go through many more now as Eldridge wrote a book in 1982 the monkey business his famous of course along with student Eagles punctuated equilibrium he says creation science isn't science at all norm creation scientists managed to come up with even a single intellectually compelling scientifically testable statement about the natural world next slide it says at least 95% of their reams of properly published books and pamphlets are devoted to an attack on conventional science and that's what you'll see in the Morse and gif strategy those four points are basically anti evolutionary points in and Eldridge's reaction to that is to say that's not enough if you want to place in the scientific table you need to give us a testable fault survival idea next slide he says creation scientists pose no testable hypotheses make no predictions observations worthy of the name if you look at the court decision next slide itself what the judge said for why this doesn't belong in science classroom he lists several characteristics of science just for sake of time I'm focusing on the fifth one says signs his falsifiable next slide says creation science fails to meet these essential characteristics I'm gonna jump ahead just for sake of time just slide 106 Karl Popper I could you could go look at the debates even this last year with dr. mace and with our raw encourage you to watch those this this has been the concept of a very good challenge to creationist give us a falsifiable predictions this is the this this flows right out of the nature of science and what I try to go through my book and detailing the history of genetics is this is exactly how we know the DNA is the substance aridity because these ideas scientific ideas make falsifiable predictions and and in the past century were able to disprove proteins as the substance in heredity and 107 this is really the bottom line as far as I'm concerned what the significance of what we're doing tonight what what I didn't try to do in the book that came out last year book replacing Darwin was to give testable falsifiable predictions that's to me that why this is not the 1970s more debate we're dealing now with a full-fledged creation biology explanation and let me just run through very quickly next slide some of the predictions I've put in this book predictions are the rates of speciation go to slide 110 we'll probably spend some time on this tonight predictions on the rate of which mitochondrial DNA mutates we probably have time for nuclear DNA function next slide a very complex prediction on the relationship between nuclear heterozygosity and Mata Kondo mutation rates we can probably discuss that a different section I hope we'll get to this tonight next slide looking at the signature of recent historical events the history of civilization within our DNA anyway there's a number of predictions falsifiable predictions that are in this book next slide that's the context that I took for granted I'm born 1980 and so this idea falsifiable predictions is that is the environment that milieu in which I grew up and is just second nature to me though I've realized many people though have grown up in a different historical context and I and are still thinking I guess in 1970s terms now let me just give you a really brief outline go to the slide 116 of the basic parts of my book so I put there's 10 chapters there's three parts each part is making one basic point making one basic claim the first part makes a very simple claim that Darwin took assign to the grips that's what I'm claiming he tried to in a nutshell he tried to answer a fundamental a genetic question long before we had the genetic tools with which to answered so you can see the history of genetics there at point number two next slide is going through the non genetic evidence and one of my basic points is and hopefully be able to see some of this Illustrated just in the past few minutes creation science has changed significantly and that changes some of the significance of Darwin's original points because he's arguing against a view of the origin of species that modern young earth creationists don't hold you next slide and really the reason I'm saying it's time to actually go to the next slide to replace Darwin is born out of this idea of the nature of science I'm saying it's time to replace Darwin I'm claiming that in my view I'm proposing makes tests or retro diction's and predictions that are successful there's falsifiable ideas there if you go to slide 120 this is really I think where I'm hoping we can have the debate since we're talking about false well predictions it's the future where this debate really I should be I've said here's what's what we should find out so what has happened since October and my predictions have been born out or have they been falsified and we can have this debate again in a year and revisit these very same questions how have these predictions been borne out and for sake of time let me just go to slide 129 you can get this book I on Amazon I don't get any proceeds from it so this is not a sales pitch for me Kindle and print versions go to slide 131 I've set up a Facebook page for the purpose of dialog it's not for trolling there are other pages for trolling this I set up just to have a safe space so to speak for people say hey I've got a problem with this or what did you mean by that my goal in this debate is not hoora and bash people but I'd like to see the signs of bands so thank you very much I should say my my goal here was to try to present the history as fairly as possible so I'm happy to have dr. Mayes correct anything that you thought I misstated I was trying to draw on what fujiyama's written and others just so people understand one thing I realized in giving presentation to creationist audiences as many of them did not know this history that I took for granted and so I'll give talks to at the Museum and I'll spend 50 minutes giving history and then 10 minutes at the end saying here's what's in the book so that okay this is why batters anyway well the first lesson the first correction is his name is Fatima Oh too much thank you we're ready for hey I was muted I apologize um yes dr. Mase the the floor is now your sir I want to put up my slides I probably won't be flicking flicking through the slides until about five minutes so just bear with me okay so I'm just going to dive right into it Nathaniel Jensen's replacing Darwin could he caught a pseudo-scientific work but arguably that is unfair pseudo comes from the Greek sudhi's for false or pseudos for falsehood this to me suggests the a willing participation in a deliberate lie and I'm happy to grant Nathanael some sincerity because the bulk of the errors in replacing Darwin are errors of omission I lean towards describing it as quasi scientific it's partially or abstence ibly science quasi is Latin for as if and it's indeed as if what you're reading and replacing Darwin is science I'm willing to be generous and accept the majority of these emissions are simply due to an author with no actual expertise in the field he's writing about a subject of finding Darwin is rooted in population genetics by geography follow geography speciation molecular evolution systematics none of which are fields where Jenson possesses any professional expertise himself nor am i aware of Jenson ever having someone with actual expertise in these fields reviewing either his book or any of his articles published on the Answers in Genesis website as far as I know he's only had his fellow like-minded creationist chime in on his work or at best someone with some molecular biology background who he's described in other talks as a friend and theistic evolutionist Isaac Newton famously said if he's seen any further it's because he stands on the shoulders of giants meaning in science we build from the findings of others the entire book has the feel of someone who's abandoned Newton's maximum and replaced it with I'll make it up as I go along Steven Pinker and his book better angels of our nature said no one is smart enough to figure out anything worthwhile from scratch yet that seems to be exactly what Nathaniel is attempting to do however Jensen has enough biology background to give us arguments the appearance of being grounded in science the audience of his book are predominantly plica mounted creationist with little or no scientific background themselves and to them a Harvard degree in biology seems all that's necessary to provide credibility in any field of the life sciences or the sciences in general Answers in Genesis plays upon this and hires people like George Aperta Moore Nathaniel Jensen and touts them as legitimate scientists with ongoing research programs the reality is here they have a legitimate scientific background that they are leveraging in an attempt to lend scientific credibility to what is ultimately an ideological and religious agenda Answers in Genesis by its own admission is a religious ministry that requires its employees from Jensen to Purdham someone working at the register at the gift shop to adhere to particular fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible and a number of specific positions on social cultural water issues it's not a museum it's not a research institution it's not promoting science it's a religious ministry and that's fine replacing Darwin is quasi science it's abstence ibly scientific presenting arguments constructed carefully around glaring omissions and mostly divorced from the actual primary literature in the fields it seeks to replace it's as if it were science and an audience with shared religious and ideological leanings and little knowledge of biology are simply incapable of escaping their own tribal preferences and does can't view it critically the danger with works like replacing Darwin is that people either deliberately ignore or unaware of it so missions and become enamored with the Harvard credentials of its arth author such that they legitimize narrow fundamentalist religious views and science appeals to belief in divine agency are not scientific propositions that's not to say that people should be devoid of such appeals if the discussion is about whether or not people should be free to exercise their religious convictions and whether those religious convictions themselves are legitimate as personal theological beliefs and I suspect I'm on Nathaniel side of that discussion I'm not out as a scientist or science educator to rob anyone of their religious beliefs my goal is simply to teach science literacy and an appreciation for the natural world and scientific method I'm not interested in converting people to atheism and I'm not an atheist myself however religious beliefs are not science at presenting them as such as both science and religion a great disservice now let's look at some of the claims that the Daniels made in his book here one of the key claims he makes and he kind of mentions this is that creationism makes testable predictions and those predictions we can measure against the evidence and that's to some degree true so if you confine the predictions of creationism to something like independent origins of different groups of organisms such that they never shared a common ancestry with any other organisms that bear claim by itself is something that we can test now that Nathaniel's said that we have to wait a year or or for this claim to be tested we don't it's been tested explicitly for the past thirty years so let's think about this idea of common ancestry versus common design so common ancestry says different species share a common genetic history while common design says different species appeared independently and never shared a common genetic ancestor so next slide so you can talk about the next things universal common ancestry you can talk about the common ancestry of specific groups like primates for instance or fish on the other end both may be tested by the same approaches next so does any single phylogenetic tree support common ancestry no single phylogenetic trees aren't tests of common ancestry per se we support common ancestry across multiple independent lines of evidence and there's compelling both informal verbal arguments for common ancestry based on these lines of evidence but are there explicit statistical tests of commands history the common ancestry hypothesis yes there are so next slide now we can produce gene trees so gene trees are trees that we make that describe the genealogical relationships between gene sequences and the goal is in in systematics is to take those gene trees or those trees and produce from other data as well and use those to test hypotheses about a species tree now different genes can have different independent histories so no one gene tree is is necessarily reliable in the limiting a species history creationism how hazard however says there's no species trees at all at least not of them that created cons so within these family groups that Nathaniel says are the created kinds among those groups are between those groups he says there's no common ancestry so there should be no trees that we can resolve so what does the common ancestry model predict for comparison among gene trees now the key here is we're looking for gene trees that are based on neutral variation that is the variation in the genes that we're looking at is variation that doesn't necessarily affect the function of that gene and often we look at genes that aren't necessarily having any function at all so all the variation would be neutral all we mean by neutral variation is all the variants in the population have an equal fitness no one should predominate over the other when that happens their evolution is governed by drift and we understand those principles pretty well for population shinik so next slide so one example we can give and John was very good to talk about this last night about encoding genes so you can look at some coding genes oh so these are genes that I'll chemically encode for proteins so they get transcribed into RNA and that RNA gets translated into amino acid chains which fold up to become the proteins well there's a what we call a four-fold degenerate nature to that code so every three letters of DNA encodes for one amino acid but the last letter can vary quite a bit and it produces the same amino acid now there are codon biases and there's there's reasons why some organisms have prefer some codons over others but within that we still know because we've tested this despite the fact that there's codon biases that there is neutral variation and not just encoding genes but we can look in introns and other types of gene sequences as well so what happens when we look at that next slide so this is a paper by Martin Bontrager and others from a David Baum's lab looking at statistical evidence for a common ancestry specifically among primates so they created these independent data sets from 17 protein coding genes and what they did was they have 16 primate families and they randomly took a species from each of the 16 families and made it a different data set so they did this 50 times so they had 50 independent replicates of this data set and what they ended up with it for each for each of the 50 data sets they had 3657 aligned codons so next slide so here's one measure of what they did so you can have so for instance if you have 16 families and say at all those families in this gene there's a site there that Perdue that is valine which is an one amino acid well what you do is you take all the possible codons that can encode for valine and you select from them randomly right so any codon that can select that you can choose from to produce failing you select from you choose either with equal probability or you can choose them with some according to some model of codon bias so you can incorporate that in your test and what they did was create these datasets where you have a distribution of of trees that you produce from those those simulated data sets that would be the trees that you would predict you would see if the different families never shared a common ancestor so in each of these graphs at the top and there's one graph the top one in the middle one at the bottom those are referring to three different types of models so they didn't want to just test according to one type of code on bias they tested for three on the black bars on the on the right of the graph represent the distribution of a codons that you would predict so again this is like Nathaniel said we're we're having a prediction that's based on this central feature of creationism that these families never shared a common ancestor so that's the prediction that you would have if those 16 families never shared a common ancestor that's the black bars the gray bars on the other side are the actual distributions of codons so that's the actual distributions of codons in these things and it's tested across either all codons which is on the left or only you can test it only for the codons that are variable so that are that are variable between the different species and the trees and then the three levels of this as you do this four different types of biases in the codons each time you do it no matter how you tweak the analysis the differences between the expectation of creationism and the reality of the real data that you look at are huge so they are hundreds in some cases two hundred or through almost three hundred standard deviations away from one another if you know anything about statistics this there's a p-value associated with this this is an infinitesimally small p-value now they took the same data and they tested it in other ways next slide so they asked how similar are two phylogenetic trees based on one on amino acids so you killed a tree based on amino acids and other one you based on nucleotides on the DNA based on these synonymous or these silent neutral sites without common ancestry there's no reason to expect these two trees would be the same okay so that's another prediction of creationism has been tested the p-values for the differences between the trees the predicted trees that you would get under creationism and the real trees that you get in the actual data are tiny so across all 50 regular replicates the p-values range from about three times ten to minus nine to one times ten to the minus thirteen so that's if you think of that in terms of an odds ratio that's like a one in forty billion chance of getting a match that's that's actually that's a missed typo that's a match that that that bad or worse between the two trees okay so a very small p-value um then you can look at another test they did the length of the tree so the tree length there's there's different expectations for the tree length under a creationist model versus a the actual beta and you see again the black Oh next slide sorry you can see the black bars there are the predicted predictions of the creationist model and the gray bars of the actual data and you can see they don't overlap there are hundred standard deviations apart from one another so Bontrager in this paper has falsified the predictions a central prediction of almost any creationist model that these different families don't share a common ancestor now is that the only paper that's done this is just just a fluke waiting for other papers no next slide creationists predictions have been tested explicitly using molecular data for since the early 1980s so we've had these very explicit tests using very sophisticated types of data for a very long time so for instance Theobald in 2010 tested for universal common ancestry not common ancestry among primates but among eukaryotes bacteria and archaea and tested by a model selection method that doesn't necessarily rely on sequence similarity and that supported common ancestry white in 2013 tested a common ancestry they said common assertion explains that available data in protein sequences from both chloroplasts nuclear and mitochondrial sequences across eight data sets at 51 different proteins also supporting the common ancestor model and rejecting any model that's based on independent histories which is what a creation model will be based bomb in 2016 does statistical test based on morphological molecular and graphic data that tests for phylogenetic Auto correlation between these things so if creationism were true you wouldn't necessarily expect any similar phylogenetic signal between independent lines of evidence if there was no real ancestry there in the first place right if there was no shared ancestry you wouldn't expect these independence independent lines of evidence to converge on the same thing and he corrects for variation in ecology incorporates fossil data in this study and it strongly supports us specifically for primates a primate common ancestry via Bob 2010 in Nature has done the same thing see of all 2011 has another paper on this penny in 2003 and penny is one of the first people to do this in 1982 did this as well so we have strong rejections of the creationist model that are done in a very explicit statistical rigorous hypothetical deductive ways and by the way when Nathaniel says deduction is not what we use in experimental science it actually is it's called the hypothetical both the Vedic Oh deductive method that's the method of falsifying things that Karl Popper preferred and it is actually a deductive method so these reputations of creationist predictions were done via this deductive method of generating a hypothesis making predictions and measuring those predictions against the evidence and falsifying them when they don't match that's poppers hypothetical deductive method right there so next slide so we can we can we can look at this in another way we can look at let's let's look at some mammals here or mammals and a shark a cetaceans a dolphin here or a killer whale or something like that cow a manatee and a shark and so a common creation event says that these groups never shared a common ancestor a common ancestry says they did and they should we should see this pattern when we look at the comparative data repeated over and over again across different independent lines of evidence next slide now you can say that there's a common design but when you say there's a common design your start you would have two groups a the the shark and the whale together since there if you're designing a pelagic predator you should design them the same so they should fall out on the tree in the same place and then another marine animal manatee should fall out close to them none of them should be closer to the cow than they are to other things that are designed designed to be in the water right so we have another prediction there from common design hypothesis next slide here again actions of that common design hypothesis aren't met in the data and the predictions of the common ancestry hypothesis are so let's just look at the case for Wales in particular let's go through them so next here's a tree that has that uses a cytochrome B which is mitochondrial gene so this is a gene in the mitochondria the little loop of DNA that John did a good job explaining about that mitochondria have and another type of gene that's that's not a protein coding gene it encodes an RNA molecule that is its own and product it just makes an RNA molecule that's the ribosomes in the mitochondria need it's the 12 s ribosomal RNA if you build a tree based on those sequences what do you find well you find that cetaceans which are circled in red are next to hippos and cetaceans and hippos together are embedded in the artiodactyls which are hoofed mammals next slide what if we do this for a nuclear gene so let's say a case in gene so all mammals have casein genes they're produced in the milk so it's a common gene in mammals what do you have there what does that tree produce this is an independent this is a different amount of Konnor of gene it's doing a different different thing the tree you produced there is you have whales next to hippos and there imbedded within artiodactyls the hoofed even-toed hoofed mammals let's do another one what's the next the next slide please so what about DNA DNA hybridization so instead of looking at just single molecules let's take the entire genomes of whales and let's heat them up so the two strands come apart and now we'll cool cool them down with strands from other animals okay so let's heat them up from the whales cool them down with the strands of say a hippo and a goat and a dog etc and we'll let them anneal together so now you have these hybrid DNA molecules that half of it is whale and half of it is something else now we're going to heat them up just make them break apart how much heat is going to take to break apart well the amount of heat it takes to break them apart tells you how similar they are across the whole genome this is an old way of doing this before we could sequence whole genomes when you do this very crude method what do you find well you find that whales again are embedded in the artiodactyls you find another independent line of evidence telling the same thing next slide so the next one years we have these these transposons these are these little trance trance poseable elements that get inserted into our junk genome at with some probability and what you find there is there's a a insertion of a transpose on a retro transposon called a sign element that occurs that share between what cows hippos and whales again pointing to the same answer next slide please here's another tree that's more recently produced by gate C in 2013 and if you look at the blew here that's where and the Archaea doctor next slide and if you look at this these tables at the at the nodes of the branch points of each part of the tree this tells you how many genes sort of support that node basically this is multiple genes that we have that we analyze all at the same time for this and where do the whales fall if you do multiple genes all the same like I think this has like 30 genes or something they fall next to the hippos and that group is embedded in the Archaea diagonals next slide so some things that common ancestry is not it's not simply just about traits when Jensen says that the Origin of Species is about the origin of traits that's not entirely accurate the Origin of Species about the origin of lineages and you can have traits originated outside of the origin of particular lineage --is it's not simply about just similarity so if you bill if you're building trees off of just distance measures and things like that you're not explicitly testing models of evolution it's not a linear progression evolution is a branching process that produces these big branching distributions what we call Markov trees of different organisms it's not a linear thing of simple to complex over time so again it's not less complex temor it's not different species mating to make new species and it's not necessarily to have complete genealogies even to support common ancestry so we can augment with the fossil record and all those examples from molecular genetics what if you look to the fossil record for whales what do you find well you find fossil organisms that have the traits of whales and they have unique ankle bones that have only ever been found first of all they have legs which is weird but they have in those legs that they have they all have these unique ankle bones that have only been found where artiodactyls so again you have the paleontology is now pointing you in the same direction so evolution is about the evidence for common ancestry and about testing models of creationism or independent origins or whatever is about multiple lines of evidence and falsifying those things and despite the fact that Nathaniel says that we're waiting to test the predictions of the creationism he's wrong because they've already been tested many many times over and they failed every time so that's it thanks we are now going to go into the open format between the two of you um we scheduled we've displayed this for 30 minutes so on the clock and since dr. Mase just went dr. Jason will begin with you if you want to either address either brought up or ask a question whichever way you want to approach and we'll just let you guys but I love been forth to ask a question Michael my presentation was to establish common ground so I was gonna invite dr. Mayes to comment on it and say anything that he wanted to correct or maybe points where he agreed again I think this is useful not just for that I think this is useful for both sides to understand where the history has come from why we're talking about what we're talking about what we should be talking about when it comes to scientific disagreement so if he's if he's comfortable dad I'd love to hear his feedback you want to hear with about what I agree with any comments you have just for our I guess helpful for our audiences both creationists evolutionists say hey you know this oh I would say one thing I agree with is that one adversary if you want to call it that of many creationists have been people like Jerry Coyne and and Richard Dawkins and things like that who have made the science out to be an argument against Christianity and an argument for atheism I'm with you on that in that I'm against that approach to this because it has nothing to do with that at all and when someone like talkin czar especially Jerry Coyne and others and even PZ Myers has kind of done this from time to time portrays this as something to where the science going with one hypothesis over another based on the data as something that precludes a certain religious belief necessarily I don't agree with that I I don't think that the science should be something that we use to bludgeon religious religious people with I think those two areas are totally separate so if you you know are in agreement with that then you know I I would join you in arguing against people like Dawkins and Coyne on those points I guess I was wondering if you could comment on what I presented and specifically the nature of science and what do we call science and non science well you got sort of the nature of science wrong from the beginning because you implied that deduction isn't experimental science when Ashley popper was very explicit about the hypothetical deductive method comes from you know is the method that popper championed and it's that method that is where falsifiability comes from so falsifiability itself is part of a deductive approach to doing sorry it's not an inductive approach so what would you say is the deductive are for me to agree with with that it went you know I didn't get it right to begin with but you know you're right if you're see if you're saying if you're saying that science should make predictions and that we should measure those predictions against the available evidence that's exactly what we do it's it's it's science in general doesn't have one single method it's it's a diversity of approaches that we use where we use reason and evidence to explain the natural world and we do that by matching models predictions against the data that we collect just like I showed in my presentation of how we we do that when we're comparing independent ancestry versus common ancestry so if that's your idea of science I agree okay so it sounds like there's just a difference of terminology I'm familiar with the hypothetical deductive from my background reading and anyway I want with that one trying to describe what we're doing science I was curious if well when you say that when you say the deductive method isn't isn't how experimental science works that's simply wrong I guess I'm saying science by thinking that's how is defining it well science by thinking it's not that's not that's not the deductive you know that you can do a deductive approach to science if that is experimental effective the falsifiability and and the hypothesis testing approach of science is the deductive method by definition so ask my question what's the protocol for engagement click Kyle's on mute Kyle you're on mute I am basically it's just a free-flowing conversation between the two of you since you just asked the question dr. Mayes if you want to ask any you know drug questions about anything that he brought up in in the first however you want to do it we just want this to be kind like an organic dialogue between the two of you without it being so rigid in do you understand you understand what the coalescent is yeah well could you describe for the people watching what the coalescent is it's a complex statistical phenomena so we'd have to get in some discussions of genetic drift but mutations happen over time and due to some reproducing some not reproducing and a whole bunch of other genetic processes let me just go extinct some let me just persist so what we see here is a bunch of lineages today let's say for example in mitochondrial DNA that coalesced fact or common ancestor due to these several genetic processes what several genetic processes are I mean I'm asking because in one of your papers you mentioned that you used the what you call the coalescent equation that you took from an undergraduate textbook took from Fatuma and it basically was just the mutation rate times time do you think that's the coalesced V it could out say that again Oh Michael Asian he's asking me do you think that's the entire coalescence equation I hear you're having a pellet lesson raging like there's a call us an equation and that's it like you said in your paper I don't think that it was trying to apply in the paper I was following protocol as was practice in the literature well that's not the literature though no one cites an undergraduate a textbook to discuss the coalescing coalescent theory much less do they cite the simple kind of algebraic relationship between time and and and genetic distance that's not that's none really what the whole lesson is there's not one coalescent equation there's lots of them to describe this part and then why when they were there annotators like of the human mitochondrial DNA using the same thing what about what actually committed Fujiyama foot fatima and i cited a paper that used the same thing basically but that's not the coalescent equation that's that's not what it is i've useful that's not one year virgins and i followed the the mainstream literature practice you actually didn't there are I can send you hundreds of papers on the coalescent and and none of them described it the way they described it I mean not going to explain it to you so for instance do you do you think that although I have the same coalescent time let's back up for a second we might get far afield here so John it's important points last night on mitochondrial DNA and the predictions that it makes that would be a great topic to discuss well I asked you though tonight do all Holland don't listen to what I'd rather discuss though is the science and what makes the best testable predictions and one of the things I was hoping we could discuss before we get into the coalescent which is important topic I was wondering if you could show me I'd really appreciate your presentation by the way I learned a lot from them I appreciate your research excited about the genome research you're doing it's a presentation given before which I enjoyed that was also my concern because I didn't see much that actually addressed what was in my book so I was warming if we before we get into the coalescent you could pick one of the points that you were making and show me from my book where that prediction come that was being first of all it does address your book because in the book and actually chapter 5 I believe you talk pretty extensively about how common ancestry and common design are not mutually exclusive so to speak and then you talk about how common design makes predictions and you go on to say that those predictions haven't been tested so you clearly say this this is chapter 5 of the book you go on about this pretty extensively and then also in the beginning of the discussion today you said the same thing you said we have to wait a year that you know maybe we'll come back in a year and we'll test the predictions of common ancestry but I want to back up did your breathe everything up a little bit dr. Boyce you're breaking up a little bit I think that maybe he's not fully hearing the question so be dafair to him can you repeat your question in its entirety about the photo see yeah so the was you hear me now yes okay the question was do mitochondria Monica Monica chondral sequences have the same do all gene sequences anywhere have the same coalescent this gets into that question if your excuse me this gets into a number of topics that I covered in my book and I want to make sure we're on the same page with the book first yes I know it does it does have to do with the book it has to do with whether or not you understand what the coalescent approach is so again I'm asking you do all lows I have the same coalescent time I guess here's my point and my hope was we gonna have a good scientific discussion instead of an insulting - well I'm not insulting you I'm asking you a question most of what well you started with a bunch of insults I'm not interested really in returning that but most of what you said in your presentation I'd have a hard time finding and what I published and I know Shannon q last night was asking that we not attack straw men so I was wondering if you could just pick one of your points and show me the specifics of how you derived what you're calling my prediction and show how it's falsified because actually some of the things you were saying were the predictions I said the opposite in my book so if you just pick one and show me from the book that I claim this is a prediction of the creation model I think we could have a good soil that way just to be clear a coalescent isn't relevant topic to two subjects in your book and in your papers Oh absent asking and I'm asking if you I'm not trying to insult you I'm asking questions that are relevant to the topics covered in the book if you can't answer that question and I guess we're just forced to move on and I can answer that question for you it's that the reason I'm bringing up the book is because how do you answer that question deals with a lot of the topics that I bring up so are all mutations are all differences the result of mutation are some of those differences there I've created diversity we're talking about very different processes and it gets a much more complex discussion we're talking about coalescence and it's gonna be difficult to not talk past each other unless we're talking about hypotheses that I'm actually proposing I think I can give you a simple example let's say you have four sequences in this this is one generation there's four sequences in the past okay so let's say we pick one of those ones and we say this one is a copy from this one so what's the chance that this one is also a copy from that one it's one in four right so there's a one in four chance that we would have that one in four right now if you have cool lessons as a function of population size that it's different from mitochondrial versus ordinay this is a hoax explosion yeah your well you could have just answered that so here you have what's the chance that this one and this one are now with a well now it's one two three the difference between mark DNA and nuclear DNA is that mitochondrial DNA is only passed on by females and it's only half whereas every two parents has they have two nuclear alleles so the effective population size for a mitochondrial locust is one-fourth what it is for a nuclear locust you know just like this example shows no that's not what you said in your paper so because what that means is this that if you have a coalescent time or a mitochondrial gene you're going to have another coalescent time for a nuclear gene that's four times older yeah so any coalescent time that you have for a mitochondria that predicts that things go back to say six thousand years you're gonna have not just one but you'll have actually a Poisson distribution of coalescent times with the big long tail like this that's older and the coalesce at time for mitochondrial DNA so all the genes whether they're mitochondrial made clear have different coalescent times and if you assume mitochondrial those identical as Michaels it has nothing to do with mutation at all it has to has introduced it has to do because you're counting backwards in time it has to do mainly with the effective population size so just like here I never in this example said anything about mutation but clearly you can see the chance that if you go back one generation if it's four is greater than if it's ten so that means the time that you can trace back to sequences to a single coalescence is going to be more for the one with the bigger population size than with the smaller oh yeah and that's regardless of the mutation rate and so that's that's not something you tow it and there's a whole plethora of that's just the very very basic undergrad version of this and then okay although that's every creature is going to have an end every gene is going to have an independent history associated with it and so you ask all these genealogies you're gonna use to determine what the species history is and it's gonna be different so if you trace back I'm out of chondral coal that's at time to 6,000 years and that only means that there's a nuclear time that's much much older than that waiting for it in the background so implicit in this theory is the fact that these differences arise by a mutation and that's a major difference between my explanation for nuclear day DNA and the prevailing mainstream one and I'm quite familiar with it oh they don't arise through mutation did your remote ah great yeah and I think in there you see you I don't know if it's in that chapter but you said that in the book you said that mutation is responsible for the diversity we see at the NA sequences except at the very beginning when you just read well I mean you can explain it you can explain how you get a mitochondrial time that goes back 6,000 years how can there be older times than that how would you say is my position on the origin of nuclear DNA the origin of nuclear DNA well I think your position of the origin of all DNA ultimately is God created it that's incorrect you don't think God created DNA what do you think I said in my book well you can explain it out have it memorized if I'm gonna mischaracterize it you can explain it right now is your chance that's why I want you to go through all the examples you gave just pick one I want you to show me from my book John Perry actually mentioned this last night he's actually read what I've written and he says he knows that one of the reasons I gave for why so so so many people 97% scientific community disagrees with what I say one of the things I say is I think so many people haven't read it and I'd like to see some evidence from your slides that you've read the book so I'd like you to pick one of the examples that you give for testing common ancestry versus separate ancestry for the record actually talk that's always separate topic but I'd like to see from my book one of the tests you give the falsification of common ancestry versus separate ancestry how that separate ancestry prediction flows from what I've written so to be clear you would say that families look like this at the family level we have three families a B and C they started at a particular time and went on and they might have diversified into species within those families but those family lineages started at one time and they never had any history of a shared ancestry prior is that correct at the organismal yes so and then there's this argument that's a little hard to follow that there's some genetic hocus-pocus going on in here that was created at the inception of these things that's creating the pattern somehow but why are those patterns there what do I predict as the pattern for separate ancestry well I'm as you that question what do what do you predict is the pattern for separate I mean I think when I reach through Chapter five in particular I I see that you're saying that the your model makes the same predictions as the common ancestry model is that not correct you say that's sort of what happens look what are those predictions that you would make some tree like such if you looked at the gate I'm asking is once you pull up on your slides that you say falsify as separate ancestry well somebody can pull up my slides go ahead go to number seven pick any one of the tests slide slide number seven there you go why don't you explain for our audience how the separate ancestry prediction was derived so that someone can repeat it to somebody else and then connect it out as sudden look yes the separate ancestry prediction was derived based on the fact that you have all these protein coding sequences that they looked at they made fifty independent data sets from these primate families families within the primate order and then they said okay if they share valine across all of them we're going to we're going to randomly pick a codon for veiling now what what your model would say and what you say in the book is you talk a little bit about how there's codon bias and there's some functional reasons for why some families would have some codons versus other codons at other times you seem to suggest that there's neutral variation is a real thing and so it's a little unclear as to which one you would apply in this particular case but things the independent ancestry model would say that if they never shared a common ancestor then what piece of DNA they'd have to encode for valine there because they all have valine should vary and it should vary in a way that is different than the way that it varies under a common ancestry model and in one of the levels of this analysis here are different models that specifically bias codons so it actually accounts for this sort of biased that there should be some codons that should be more prevalent than others even though they produce the same amino acid so it actually deals with the premise that you bring up in your book and other people have tested this idea that there's some functional relationship between among codons where some codon synonymous codons even though they make the same amino acid and they don't appear to make any difference that they can be used to speed up you say that you should speed up or slow down transcription and and things like that depending on what codons they have there now people are aware of these biases and they incorporate for them and so the authors of this study actually incorporated four different kind of codon biases in the analysis and they still produce the differences so you can so I is that tying it to your book enough I mean you just said you would say that if production was variation specific design you said that these variations are due to design so that there's there's design reasons or functional reasons for protein coding genes to have different codons that encode the same amino acid why don't you explain what that score represents it's actually quite fuzzy for me on the screen SCOR the entropy score so that tells you how variable that tells you how variable it the if you just select at random how variable it is between the different lineages for each amino acid and you should expect more variation if each one of the families never shared a common ancestor because if they shared a common ancestor then that means there's some change that happened in the past that they share that will make it less variable so there's a reason for why there's less what they call a measure of entropy but it's sort of like it's sort of like a variation it's basically it's a statistic that quantifies the amount of variation where the values are categorical basically so there's a reason to suspect that in a common ancestry model you would have less variation than in an independent origins model now you would argue in your book there are functional reasons for why there's that variation there so you would say that the black distribution there that they say is the sort of creationist model in this in this case would be explained by some functionality somewhere but there's no evidence of that functionality and where there's bias and the codons they took that into account so where you can look to that and make predictions about the amount of variability among these various groups well he probably missed that prediction because maybe he didn't understand the implications of what you were saying but the implication of your theory is that there should be independent origins of different families and if that's the idea that you're positing then that's going to be a prediction of that model actually what you showed is the opposite of what I predicted in my book well explain it I was talking I might book predicts nested hierarchies it really doesn't predict anything about the level variability among these separate families instead what I show is that the way to predict the way to compare evolution creation head-to-head is on the level of function so I would say that test you showed is not actually it might be a reputation of separate ancestry but it's not what I'm proposing the book can you pick another one why should we focus on function in fact if you look at variation that occurs independent of any variation in function then it's a much better test because then you've removed this idea that there should be some and this is a classic sort of approach at follow genetics is that you don't want to use characters that are function or genes that are functional in a sense you want to use neutral genetic markers and in fact if you understood the coalescent and you're using the coalescent the coalescent is based exclusively on nutrient neutral variation so if you're saying there's no neutral variation or nutrient neutral variation does it matter for your model then you should never be using the coalescent because it's predicated either of those things variation they don't say anything I don't know where this idea is that where you can't I don't know where this idea is coming from is where you can't pay any attention to neutral variation at all I don't sit it in the book well tell me what's your predictions would be for it for variation that's truly neutral in this case I guess I'm challenging cuz you're the one who made the claim that the book is riddled with errors and refuted many times and my pushback is you need to show me from the book that you're actually Terry proposed notice prayers what wine is how you discuss the coalescent it's just simply wrong so that's a big error another error is just little there's just little errors like you know there's a part in the biogeography section I think it's chapter 4 where you say that there's river otters native to Hawaii there aren't or then you say that you're talking about the biogeography of ratites which are like the big flightless birds and antenna moves like a Kia EMU and cassowary and ostrich Andrea and you talk about how Ria's and ostriches are more similar to one another well they're really not actually so so there-there are errors in your book it's not an error questions I would I would love to discuss them but I want to finish what you had presented first and that's the topic at hand and I'm hoping you can show me and pick another one of your slides where you say creationism separate ancestry my book has been refuted I'd like to see you show let's go to see why let's go to slide 12 and so let's talk about these evolution of these mammals and so if if function is what you're saying should if function is the thing that's important in determining these trees why don't we get whales and sharks and manatees on the same branch of a tree if function were truly the important thing in determining relationships and so I assume as that pretty so again this is a question of this tree is drawn based on variability and I don't have predictions based on variability now this this tree is just my two hypotheses trees are hypotheses that's that's all trees are ultimately in the end water is the hypotheses in my book I didn't you just say that you emphasized that nested harkey's should be based on function I said what would I say in the book I'd encourage everyone to read to get a sense for what I'm actually saying that the design model what I'm proposing predicts the existence of nested hierarchies and by the way I have a vested interest in knowing what is separately related and what's not going this is very different creationist to you than 1859 it's it's not as simple as everything's designed this is your earth creationists have to try to separate between what they think are the original created coins which have separate ancestries and those members that do have a common ancestor and so I have a vested interest in detecting signatures of non design versus design I'd love to have them and to make a long story short it's the genetic clocks that I'm primarily using I think is the way forward to answer that question but in terms of the variability between things that have separate ancestry you won't find a prediction on that in my book instead what I say is an indirect way to test this is if one model says separate ancestry another model says common ancestry this leads to and I go through the math and when I paper is first papers in 2013 34 page paper detailed derivation of this leads to very specific different predictions and function it arises out of an article I think it's on talked origins it talks about neutral variation all these sorts of things these are their their implicit predictions made about amino acid function about third codon position function anyway so what I've laid out in the book is very specific predictions about whether or not these have function and how those turn out have indirect implications for the ancestry question because they're based on these different models but you won't find something talking about variability between what I'm proposing as separate kinds oh if you're saying functioning why why wouldn't you get the tree where sharks and manatees and whales are on one branch even though they never shared a common ancestry you would get a nested hierarchy that would put them there because of a functional similarity why don't you get that my book doesn't make that prediction it doesn't deal with them I'm asking you what your phrasing I'm asking you what your what your model would say for that pattern what would it say it doesn't have a prediction on pattern instead what it says is here's if we if we take as the starting points various positions on ancestry this leads to predictions on whether or not these sequences under consideration are functional or simply neutral and chalk origins discuss as a detail that was the basis than in 2013 for me deriving a long paper making other predictions that experiments will eventually show to be true or false so I'd like to hear some other discussion all things from I've said that once a you say in the book is in life of these parallels and you talk about the parallels between technology and and classification basic clustering of living things in light of these perils we'd be justified in claiming that the hierarchal hierarchical pattern of life strongly suggest that it was the result of a deliberate design so what is it about hierarchy that we have where whales are embedded within hoofed mammals that is that tells you that that what is about that pattern tells you that that's deliberate design as you said in your book what I say in the book is that the fact that a nested hierarchy exists is consistent with the hypothesis of design and we can take that a step further and say okay I'm going to say that whales and land mammals have separate ancestors the evolution model says they have a common ancestor then we can compare specific nuclear proteins mitochondrial proteins nuclear DNA sequences mitochondrial DNA sequences and there should be a prediction within the evolutionary model as to whether or not those sequences under comparison are simply neutral clocks over time or whether they're performing some function within each of these respective creatures and that's where the rub is and that's where I've laid out a very detailed model that things we can test in the lab there are being tests currently and not get resolved they're not really answering the question I mean you said in the book that hierarchal patterns strongly suggest that it's the result of deliberate design so can you be specific about why is it that you have a dolphin is closer to a goat than it is to a manatee why is that pattern of hierarchical pattern consistent with design the book doesn't go into further detail than that just the fact that a nested hierarchy exists is the point so you're avoiding the question no I'm saying the model doesn't make predictions beyond that and that's specifically telling you understand right that no one nests hierarchical pattern based on one set of data is evidence for common ancestry it's the concilium sui have along independent lines of evidence many of those evidence either very and function from one thing to another or they are not associated with variation and function at all introns for instance so for instance when we construct phylogenetic trees we use nuclear introns in addition to mitochondrial DNA nuclear introns and accumulate variation more so than the rest of the gene can and so we can they're more phylogenetically informative in that way and we we're not plagued with these issues basically so you know I mean I I can't tell really if you're saying because sometimes you say in the book neutral variation exists and it explains the patterns we see and then other times like when you talk about well now you talk about the coalescent and then other times you say that it's it's all just looks like it's neutral but it's really functional we'll find out someday if it's functional actually I make a lot of very specific statements both in the book and especially in the endnotes and I'm still waiting for you to point out one of those and I disappointed you haven't been able to really give me more from the book and that directly addresses what I say what I'd like to propose for the future is this and we didn't really have time to discuss mitochondrial DNA here's a testable prediction that's in the book that we can both evaluate side by side I think this is a pro science way of taking the debate forward what I say in the book is that if mitochondrial DNA differences are explicable over six thousand years over the last six thousand years we all agree is the history of civilization so you should be able to see the stamp of this the Roman Empire the Greek Empire Genghis Khan sent or all of these things should be recognizable within a mitochondrial DNA differences and not so much if Matakana DNA differences represent hundreds of thousands of years of history one of the best test cases that will distinguish between evolution and creation is the transatlantic slave trade and we've got two thousand five hundred and four individual mitochondrial DNA sequences within the thousand genomes project that's freely available anyone can download anyone can do this experiment and I'm spent two years on this close to being finished I think we have a a detectable signature so why don't we do an experiment parallel you can this is your expertise you can down all this thousand genome sequence make make a manual diction Nathaniel we just talked about this for you to say that my control diversity only goes back six thousand years you're saying by necessity that the coalescent of the of the samples of mitochondrial DNA we have today can be traced back so they all trace back those mitochondrial lineages trace back to one within 6,000 years they trace back don't worry details okay so that means that by I mean that means that nuclear genes have to be older have older coalescent times than 6,000 years so how can you have one locus the mitochondria only go back 6,000 years but other genes go back longer than 6,000 years if you that idea of yours is correct you're only basing this only on mitochondrial DNA and you in the book you generally avoid any discussion of any kind of nuclear markers at all which the irony is now that we have better sequencing method most of the discussion on things like mutation rates and file genetics and things like that are involving nuclear markers especially even whole genomes at the whole genome level Steve you for the photos I don't see how we let you guys know we we are running short on time go ahead and continue with this line of questioning please finish up on the mitochondria DNA we do have a few super chats to get to though so if you got to wrap this up on the micron or DNA and then we'll do you guys mind if we go to a couple of questions Steve I hope you see my point I hope you see my point I'm appointed I I've tried to read the book I've got through a lot of it I honestly passed the beginning part when it gets to the phylogenetics I am it I don't understand it enough to even well read it twice I read it over twice the short answer is I've got an entire chapter on nuclear DNA it's incorrect to say I don't deal with it at all and it's a chapter articulating here again again like I said in my introductory remarks the main errors they're not the only errors but the main errors in your book are errors of omission and when you talk about nuclear DNA you don't talk about these well-known facts about nuclear DNA is that they have a distribution of coalescent times that tends to be older than the colas at times for mitochondrial DNA you're right you don't really talk about that at all in your book and that's what I'm saying the problem is it's not so much what you did say what you left out in the book the same thing happens in mutation rates in your book so for instance you talked about a little bit about mutation rates and you have a paper where you cited three papers that are pedigree papers where you get a very a very let's say optimistic mutation rate from that but what we see is that when we really look at mutation and what you do is you throw away any estimates of mutation rate that are based on anything except for pedigrees because you don't sleep as those times of respect of an argument it's a circular argument unless you use pedigrees notice it's actually not a circular argument there are he's dependent ways to calibrate here's one it's circular the point in question is the time scale so to assume a time scale to get a mutation rate assumes the very point in question it's not circular because the calibrations for the time scale are independent of the measures of the DNA so you're not getting the time from the DNA you're calibrating the time based on an independent measure so it's not circular at all and people are very good at this and you do this throughout the book where you throw out well studied areas of science for instance so you say that I'm gonna ignore any studies of ancient DNA because I just don't believe that it's reliable when you were at Harvard probably right down the hall in Harvard Medical School was this guy David Rice who wrote an excellent book that I recommend for everybody who's been sequencing whole genomes from everything from Neanderthals to archaic humans and they've been added to our understanding of how human populations move and how they exchange genes and all that all from ancient DNA samples and they're very good at it and to just dismiss that whole field as if you know enough about it to where you've decided that it's baloney this blows my mind because these are some of the top people in this room you just throw it out and then if you go even deeper what you get is when you look at pedigree mutation rates if you get mutation rates from pedigrees they start out very high right and the reason is a lot of the mutations you measure you measure are things that are going to get weeded out over time so for instance if you measure even if you measure like from parent to offspring you're not getting any mutations that occurred that made zygotes die so any lethal mutations you're missing so even that is an underestimate of the mutation rate what we want to use in coalescent theory and in phylogenetics are not mutation rates but substitution rates and so substitution rates are the rates at which genes in the population spread to fixation in the population and so as we measure mutation rates at pedigrees they're very high but as they go down you start to weed out a lot of these deleterious mutations and they even out in the long scale like this so when you measure mutation or substitution across long scales it actually starts to equal a substitution rate and that's what we're interested in these things that's the relevant metric if you're overestimating it by using just these pedigrees and not controlling for the fact that you're you're not measuring necessarily neutral variation then you can't use these models anymore like coalescent models and things we do have to start wrapping this up unfortunately so we do have a couple questions I'm don't have time to read all the stupid chat yes absolutely will be we will be reading all the super chats in the after show and getting some of these quote more questions answered so if you didn't get your question answered I apologize we are have we do have kind of time constraints but play it by all means dr. Jensen go ahead and respond to that if you wish then we're gonna ask you a few questions yes I think dr. May has been about three points unfortunately each of those three points do not represent what I say in the book so I'd love to continue it further but we keep going back to the same problem that what he's saying and criticizing isn't actually what I said go ahead do you wish to real quick if dr. mazes of mine do you want to put forth a single summation of an argument that you were making so there is no strawman as we had talked about last night something that is just straight forward from your book that is easily digestible for everybody including the audience and everybody watching that he can address from directly your book that you have posited as a hypothesis or something along the lines of what you are saying is the case that leads you to then the the narrative that it shows some kind of 6,000 year well from the new film AMT nuclear da the microcon or DNA from 6,000 years without any kind of nuclear as dr. Mesa precursors yeah so the damage rhinoplasties mutation rates the role of natural selection time dependence 8 I'm very familiar with young earth excuse me at the evolutionary literature on this topic and my main point and actually John Perry didn't quite capture my main question to my opponents my main question my opponents is what testable predictions does your model make and let's go up and do it so to me the ideal case to do this and again I put this in print the book is let's look for the signature of the history of civilization for example the trans Lennox slave trade I'm doing the experiment right now Herman Mays can have the click of the button download all those all those sequences she's got the software to do create a tree and and and do the sorts of analysis to see where this split between Africans and african-americans happen and and look at a calibration point which we have very detailed historical data twelve million slaves you can know that the ports that came from the ports of disembark it's a fantastic and very sad historical event by which we can do this so my main point that I'm hoping audiences will see is this is a different debate what I'm proposing makes testable falsifiable predictions it's an active research program that I'm currently pursuing and inviting people to join now except is a lot of the African slaves that came over we're already add mixed with other populations before they came over and also if you're only good at something you can have been okay with the data but people have already done this tooth annual that's what I'm saying it's the errors in the book are errors you don't want to talk about because they're errors you leave out their errors of omission people have already studied this extensively like I said you could have walked down the hall when you were in graduate school to David Rice's lab and talked to him about all this stuff and he would be the best person on planet earth next is talk about my voice anyone listening find someone who can tell only 500 sequences on the thousand genomes project look where the african-americans show up you might be surprised this actually is a good time for a question on this it's related to this because we got to get these questions as we get we are running out of time one person had asked and this is directly to dr. Jensen did you seek reviews from BioLogos or any other Christian organizations or only from atheist you mentioned you mentioned dr. PZ Myers who we know quite well dr. Dawkins and a few other people coin whoever I've reached out to before as well he doesn't seem to answer these kind of things but did you try to ask any of the other Christian organizations labile logos and if and if not why did he focus particularly on the atheist speakers good question so with respect to bio logos I've debated Dennis venema you can see that online that was at a Seminary in April of last year documented the fact that he did well that doesn't read what we publish and I didn't see that as profitable so and he's probably one of the only contacts I okay I had I spent a four-hour lunch with Gerald Faulk so in 2015 he and I were at the evangelical theological Society meeting as a part of the panel discussion to discuss genetics and human origins and that sort of thing he made as a condition of this a condition of his participation in the event too before lunch with me like two months prior which I agreed to and we did a really nice time until the end and I started showing him something scientific data and I said actually the way the conversation went was he said you know it's too bad we can't have more of these discussions because my Lagos is very much about reaching the Christian community with evolution and I said actually I think my organization be quite fine with Hispanics and where these discussions but it would really help my discussions if you would review my papers and at that point the conversation switched and he's retired and he took two days out of his life just to have lunch with me said I'm too busy won't have time for that and so I thought well I didn't I was a non sequitur I asked what we were used to non sequiturs trust me I ask one question real quick a simple one so Nathaniel it seems to me from reading the book that you are really pushing this idea that creationism is falsifiable is that is that correct that's the central thesis you're aware that in in your statement of faith that you signed it being a employee of AIG it's that it's like what Ken Ham said when he debated Bill Nye when Bill I asked him what evidence would can we give you to make you let go of this idea and he said none and the statement of faith actually says that there is no evidence at all that's conceivable that could contradict with the Answers in Genesis view of the Bible so do you view this idea of creationism your version of creationism as falsifiable as at odds with your statement of faith no no so the statement of faith is really a religious philosophical summary and doesn't preclude at all making sensible predictions so the leadership is Authority listen to as it says explicitly that there's no conceivable possibility that what's been revealed in the Bible could be shown to be false you know how and then be falsifiable because you could very easily find some testable predictions you'd actually have to there are there those are separate issues to fill the field philosophy and the science are separate issues and many people confuse them and the bottom line is I've got a book out that has in print numerous Tesla predictions that you can go and evaluate in the lab and the leadership is completely onboard of that and I'm anxious that people join me in that we have one last question actually what it says let me be clear on this it says in the statement of faith by definition no apparent perceived or claimed evidence in any field including history and chronology can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record so how then is the scriptural view which is where your creationism idea come how can it be falsifiable and you also agree to that statement it's a question that serves many people up but it exists I've got those in print and they're published by the publishing arm the CEO of the master books sits in our board and they put that book in print we have one last question I'd like to give us out we got we got to move unfortunately mystery rationale mine hat asked I have a question for Jensen you cite pedigree studies to get your mutation rate in one of your papers you mentioned that you can't be sure if you're getting Kemetic or somatic mutations in the book you don't mention support and caveat why not good so this is this is a very hopeful question for a number of reasons one is if you google like Jensen mutation rate you'll come across the filthy monkey man blog where they basically imply I've confused and Herman Hayes actually has a comment on that from April 3 asking a question you can see in their eye we're then saying I'm confusing the somatic mutation rate with a germline mutation rate so that really what I'm detecting a mutation and these in this particular study let me back up for a sec you can you can see this all documented in my papers the references there and get the primary literature but one of the main studies that I was using this particular example was a massive study of Sardinians and their mitochondrial DNA and I was deriving a mutation rate from that and I and and this filthy monkey man says genes missed this point we'll actually another example people aren't reading what I write I exact caveat in my paper from 2015 so the testable hypothesis that people don't read our literature is once again fulfilled and so I appreciate the question because it shows that this versus actually read literature so why didn't I why didn't I give that caveat and in the book itself there's four reasons why number one if you look again at the history of the papers I published prod there's there's been it there's sort of two sets of mainstream mitochondrial pedigree mutation rate studies the first set there's twelve or more of them I think look at the D loop it's just a subset of mitochondrial DNA there those are germline because they're looking at multi-generation pedigrees you can look up all that literature it's publicly available some of its behind paywalls but anyway it's out there and that gave a mutation rate one mutation it's it's one time send the minus v mutations I think for base purpose generation the second set of mainstream papers looks at the entire medical genome and there I took all the data and it came out basically the same point nine five times ten to minus six it's basically rounded to the same number so there's across multiple studies a strong agreement X there's five reasons I didn't get the caveat book as the first one is there's agreement between these two sets second is the paper was to we're up 2016 mark stone King's lab one of the leaders mitochondrial DNA he's got papers against Genome Research 2016 like 228 Dutch pedigrees there he measures the effective he measured the mitochondrial bottleneck and if you look at coalescent theory you'll find out that the bottle excised from the population size and there's a lot so john perry didn't get a chance to get into this last night but actually what happens in mitochondrial DNA is there's a mutation there's heteroplasmy that drifts to fixation anyway you know if you know the bottleneck size that's a that's an indirect way of getting mutation rate and it gives basically the same answer as those other two thirdly or fourth or whatever endeavor i'm on now this leads again to tesla predictions about dating the trans leg slave trade that's basically a mutation rate free study it's looking at branch length ratios which is effectively a substitution measurement this is giving and it anyway would be a whole other discussion presentation discuss that hopefully that'll be a paper that comes out this fall but that's an agreement with it plus lastly and whether this one things I point out in the comments you can see one of the end and becomes that filthy monkey man study in the book I go through multiple other species that give a similar answers so the fact that it gives consistent answers across these multiple independent datasets it's leading to testable predictions that are working that's given me confidence that in fact we probably are looking at germline before we go any further just let you guys know links are gonna be heading out right now for the after-show on this I do want to specifically thank the super chance we weren't able to read out which we will in the after show I do want to thank Jamie I do want to thank Jade puffle epic especially roof and Shane and few other people have asked questions unfortunately we are having their time constraint issue but we are sending out the links now the after show will be on this channel it will be through vmix just like this so if you have any last-minute questions please get them in now but we already be wrapping up dr. Mayes do you want to address that particular question because I think it's only fair since was acted as to dr. beanson you kind of would you much do we joined her on it either the mutation rate one are dealing with the thematic or somatic line why was I mentioned in the well I would say his mutation rates are because they use pedigrees and they ignore everything else they're not substitution rates which is what's important to measure and if if Dave can throw up slide 24 real quick and show you what the problem of but this is it'll be just very quick it's a very graphic thing so here is from Endicott 2009 if you see that fuzzy line at the bottom those are relative rates for different parts of the mitochondrial genome and you see that they're not the same throughout now the most mutation prone region is the control region especially these we call hyper variable regions and you see the red dot on there the green dot is sort of where the is is sort of a better absolute measure of what the mutation rate is there and the red dot is the one that Nathaniel uses if you you you see that it's not if you even out all the measures across there it would be much lower than the mutation rate that he uses there and and this one again is based on internal calibration based on archaeological evidence for the occupation of Australasia and then external calibrations that he'll accept so so he's basically saying that he accepts pedigree mutation rates which aren't substitution rates and he ignores all the other estimates of substitution rates that employ methodology that he doesn't agree with so that's that's a nice figure though to show that how variable the mutation rate is even just within the mitochondrial genome and then if you extrapolate that over the entire genome there's a lot of variation in mutation rate so that's my instrument if that don't do I get a challenge this isn't real fast yeah I was just gonna say that is actually not representing what I have in my book but that's the same song multiple verses now it seems I address all these things in the book extensively and it's not accurate to describe what I've said that way anyway that's all okay I want to take a second to think about for coming on and doing this we will be hopefully doing a part two I'd love to get into some of the deeper aspects I mean it didn't feel like two hours at all I mean that was just very quick so once again thank you both for taking the time to do this and Steve you have any closing thoughts I don't except for the factory I do really want to recognize the fact that dr. Jenson was really very nice to sent us copies of the book again it's not an easy person's read for the layperson I think that it's it's well structured I think that obviously the biology in it from my limited experience is quite good I think that I've seen some omission things as well that maybe another time we could probably discuss but I do want to thank him for sending me that and I do want to thank dr. Mays for coming on multiple times as he has and just been gracious enough with his time to discuss these things because this is his actual field of expertise so thank you very much both of you if I can write as well Josiah's I just got to say when we when we set up this debate and people asked for candidates I'd specifically asked for dr. Mayes because he was so kind in his previous debates and I really appreciate him taking the time for the ways interacted it just it's a privilege to be an office with him and so thank you so much well I appreciate the opportunity and yeah and I know it's a tough thing for you to go out and and and do this and I understand the position you're in so I I do appreciate in the line maybe second thing here americaland Lions Den did me I thought he did all right guys we'll see you in about 15 minutes we're sending out links for that now so you should get those and we will continue in about 15 so thank you for watching thank you to answers and Genesis for lending us the dr. Jensen and of course dr. Mayes you as well we will see you here shortly good night everyone thanks good night guys non sequitur your facts [Music]

Channel: Answers in Genesis

Views: 11,568

Rating: 4.40625 out of 5

Keywords: Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, Dr. Herman Mays Jr., Marshall University, debate, NonSequitur Show, Darwin, evolution, creation

Id: qibOI1nUIZ0

Length: 118min 20sec (7100 seconds)

Published: Tue Sep 25 2018