Participants:
Series Code: EI
Program Code: EI190001S
|
00:36 Hello, I'm Dr. Sven Ostring, and welcome to Evolution Impossible.
00:40 The question of where life originally came from 00:43 intrigues everyone, no matter whether you're 00:45 a seven-year-old girl or a distinguished professor. 00:48 However, there is quite a variety of different theories 00:51 about how life really did come about. 00:54 In this series, we're going to be exploring the biggest theory 00:57 in the world today: evolution. 00:59 It's taught at universities and promoted in the media. 01:01 But have you ever stopped to ask whether evolution 01:04 is even possible? 01:06 According to some experts, that's the question that should 01:09 not even be raised in schools, 01:12 which is really quite surprising. 01:14 It makes me even more curious to explore whether evolution 01:17 really works or not. 01:19 Here with me to explore this really big topic is 01:22 Dr. John Ashton, Ellie Turner, Blair Lemke, 01:25 and Stephen Aveling-Rowe. 01:26 Thanks for joining me today. 01:28 Now, John, this is not a new topic for you, is it? 01:31 It's a topic that you told me you've been exploring 01:33 for almost 50 years. 01:36 Which is more than I've been alive. 01:38 And what I want to know is this: what got you interested 01:41 initially in exploring whether evolution really works or not? 01:46 Well, I started going to church in 1970, and at that time I was 01:51 working as a research fellow at the University of Tasmania. 01:55 And when the church folk found out that I was a 01:57 research scientist, they said, "Well, do you believe in 02:00 evolution or do you believe in the Bible account of creation?" 02:04 Now I had studied geology at university for a while, 02:09 and so that's when I began researching the evidence. 02:13 Where did the evidence sit? 02:16 I actually had a friend who was doing his doctorate as well 02:20 in the area of geochemistry. 02:22 And he was studying a gold deposit in New Zealand 02:28 and had a prospector's shovel handle radiocarbon dated, 02:32 and it came back at 6,600 years from the 02:36 radio dating laboratory. 02:38 And we both thought to ourself, how can this be that old? 02:42 - When did the mining actually, occur? 02:44 In the 1880s in New Zealand. 02:46 So not 6000 years ago. 02:48 Well, no, we didn't believe that the tree that it was made from 02:52 would have been that old. 02:54 So since then, I've been doing a lot of reading. 02:58 And then another time, I thought, well why don't 03:01 I ask scientists who do believe in creation 03:05 why they believe in creation. 03:08 And so I wrote to a number of scientists around the world, 03:10 leading scientists, who I found out through, you know, 03:14 connections were creationists. 03:16 And they came back... 03:18 - What was the outcome of that project? 03:19 Well, the outcome was that I put the articles together 03:23 and it became the book, In Six Days: 03:24 Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. 03:27 And that's been a best seller on Amazon 03:29 since 1999 when that came out. 03:33 And then it's interesting, this whole concept 03:37 that life arose through random mutations. 03:41 Now of course, we know now that, well, since 03:44 the development and understanding of DNA 03:46 that we've got to change the DNA, 03:49 and mutations can change the DNA. 03:51 I was meeting actually with some plant breeders 03:56 at the leading Australian university, 03:59 and we were talking about a new project 04:01 that we were involved in. 04:03 And I asked the lead plant breeder, you know, 04:07 "Do mutations produce new genetic information?" 04:11 And he said, "Oh yea, no worries." 04:12 And so I said, "Well, can you give me an example?" 04:15 And he paused and he hesitated, and he said, 04:18 "Hmm, can't think of one." 04:19 But he said, "Ask our chief geneticist." 04:21 And none of the other guys at the table, 04:24 we were having lunch at the time, commented. 04:25 But later that afternoon I met up with the chief geneticist 04:29 and I asked him the same question. 04:30 And he said, "No, never." 04:32 He said, "Mutations destroy the information in DNA." 04:36 He said, "We produce changes, but we're producing changes 04:38 by destroying DNA, not making new DNA." 04:42 And this was very relevant, because really the theory 04:45 claims that the mutations are producing new DNA. 04:48 Very interesting. And that you so much, John. 04:51 And I just would really be interested in 04:53 your perspective as well. 04:54 So, Ellie, why are you interested in the topic of 04:57 evolution and creation? 04:59 Look, for me it really began during my schooling years. 05:03 So my oldest sister, she's two years older than I am, 05:07 she was going through high school and she started 05:09 being taught evolution, of course. 05:12 And I just naturally became interested in it as well. 05:16 She started really researching the different arguments 05:20 of creation versus evolution. 05:22 Yeah, and ever since then it's been an interest of mine 05:25 and I've done a lot of reading on the topic. 05:28 And what about you, Stephen? 05:30 Where did your interest arise from? 05:32 I guess you can say it started around the family dinner table 05:35 with Dad being a biochemist and teacher in many schools. 05:38 It's a topic that's foundational to the understanding of 05:41 the sciences, and then for me particularly as I'm into nature 05:45 and wildlife in a big way. 05:48 Understanding the way speciation occurs 05:50 and the development of these species over time 05:54 is really fascinating to me. 05:56 So these are fundamental questions for me. 05:59 What about you, Blair? 06:00 Is there sort of a family kind of affair as well 06:03 with the whole evolution thing? 06:04 Yeah, look, for me I work with a lot of young people, 06:07 young people of faith, young people who are trying to learn 06:10 about faith, and one of the key things that always comes up 06:14 is the discussion of evolution and how that fits in 06:18 or doesn't fit in with the Christian worldview, 06:20 you know, as a competing worldview. 06:22 And so, in my role working with young people, 06:25 that's come up often and it's been a point of interest 06:28 that has kind of started me asking questions and 06:31 looking at the biblical account and comparing it against 06:34 theories that are suggested in science; 06:37 seeing where the two can fit together 06:39 and where there's disconnect. 06:40 So yeah, it's a big question of life that more people ask, 06:45 and young people particularly ask. 06:46 It's interesting that you should say that, 06:48 Blair, because they've done research, a small research 06:51 project, and what they found is that as young people 06:55 accept evolution and they go to university, 06:57 often their faith is eroded because of that. 07:00 So it's a big topic in terms of not only from a science 07:03 point of view, but also from a faith perspective as well. 07:07 But Stephen, I was just wondering, you know, 07:08 when you're at school with your science classes, 07:12 what were you taught in terms of evolution? 07:14 What comes to mind in terms of the evolution topic for you? 07:19 Look, for me it was a slightly different experience 07:22 coming from a home educated perspective. 07:25 But with that in mind, nonetheless, 07:27 I've been well grounded in both perspectives 07:30 and free to make my own mind up. 07:31 And so it's through much reading, research, 07:34 reading books like yours, that have helped give me 07:37 a perspective that I think holds water. 07:41 What about you, Ellie, in terms of, did you do science classes? 07:45 And what were the things which were coming through 07:48 in your science education? 07:50 For me, evolution was taught many times through high school, 07:54 and it came through even when we were 07:55 learning about other topics. 07:57 It would come through again and again. 07:59 And it was very much taught as fact, very much taught as fact. 08:02 There wasn't any question about whether it was true or not 08:05 in the teacher's eyes, I guess. 08:08 It's interesting that you should say that, Ellie. 08:10 Because, John, the fact is, for all of these guys here, 08:15 they didn't necessarily do science 08:17 in terms of at university. 08:19 But even at the primary school and even the high school levels 08:24 evolution was really promoted. 08:26 So I want to know, what is the official position 08:29 with regards to evolution among the education experts 08:33 that you're aware of? 08:34 Yeah, sure, well evolution is certainly considered 08:37 as a fact of science now. 08:39 And different science academies around the world 08:44 have published statements to that effect, 08:46 that evolution is now considered a fact of science. 08:50 What I find that's very interesting is that when you 08:52 read these statements, they're not supported 08:55 by any scientific evidence. 08:56 They make assertions that there is a large body of scientific 09:01 evidence supporting those claims. 09:03 Now the interesting thing is, since I've been researching 09:07 this, unfortunately the use of the word, "evolution," 09:12 is very broad and it can mean just very small changes. 09:15 And sure, we have evidence for very small changes. 09:18 But the mechanisms that underpin these small changes 09:22 are not the same mechanisms that would produce 09:25 a new type of organism. 09:26 And I think this is a very important point. 09:29 And when I look further, there's actually no, 09:32 well, I haven't been able to find any published paper 09:35 that provides the evidence for a mechanism that can explain 09:39 how evolution can be a fact, nor in the geological publications, 09:46 or paleontological publications, or fossil record, and so forth, 09:52 they don't show this gradual change of evolution either. 09:55 They show complete species. 09:57 So I find this very interesting. 09:59 So when these organizations make these statements now, 10:03 they're not supported by a list of references. 10:06 They're just assertions that it is a fact. 10:08 Now, one interesting thing that I noticed in one textbook 10:12 when I was at one of the universities in Melbourne 10:15 in their library one day was that they had a big statement, 10:19 a chapter heading, Evolution is a Fact. 10:22 And then in another section a little bit further on 10:26 in the chapter it said, one of the leading areas that 10:29 evolution is working on is trying to figure out 10:31 how evolution works, how evolution happens. 10:34 So in one saying, it's a fact, but then they say, 10:36 "Well, hang on, we actually don't know how it happens yet." 10:40 And it certainly comes to mind, you know, books by 10:42 Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, where they really say, 10:45 "Evolution is a fact," right on the very first page. 10:48 It's an amazing coincide. 10:50 Yes, John, this whole series is all going to be about evolution. 10:53 So we're going to cover a lot of different scientific topics. 10:57 But could you just run through with us 11:00 what is the evidence which scientists would use 11:03 to say that evolution is a fact? 11:05 What, sort of, are the pillars that kind of support this idea? 11:09 Well, I think the main pillars are the belief in the long age 11:14 for life on earth as being billions of years old. 11:19 So it's somewhere between 2.5 to 4 billion years, 11:23 maybe 3.8 billion years. 11:25 They say that this gives a long time life has evolved over, 11:29 this long period of time. 11:30 And I think that now we have evidence 11:33 to question those long ages. 11:35 We have a whole lot of data now available to us 11:38 that says, hang on, this whole Uniformitarian 11:41 Principle has problems. 11:43 The radiometric dating methods have major problems. 11:47 And one of the things that people don't realize is, 11:50 that the radiometric dating methods have actually 11:54 never been validated for prehistorical dates. 11:57 So, you know, I've worked as a chief chemist for a 12:01 National Association of Testing Authorities 12:03 registered laboratory. 12:05 And we had standard methods. 12:07 The methods have to be validated using 12:09 standard reference materials. 12:11 And this is one of the interesting facts 12:14 with radiometric dating: it hasn't been validated. 12:17 And there are a lot of other evidence that we now have 12:20 that suggest that, hang on, the biblical picture of 12:23 a young earth, of young life on earth 12:25 actually fits the data much better. 12:27 But of course, secular science doesn't want to go there. 12:30 They don't want to know anything about the Bible record. 12:32 They want to be able to explain things in material things. 12:35 But they're running into major problems in all the areas. 12:38 You know, not only in biology, but in space science, 12:42 in our understanding of time. 12:44 A whole lot of these areas are really raising questions, 12:48 particularly on these long ages, and are pointing all the time 12:52 in the direction of the biblical picture. 12:54 Which I find is really exciting. 12:57 But the issue is that this information, 13:00 this new research, isn't getting out to the young people. 13:04 It's not being taught in our schools. 13:07 You know, they're still sticking with this old curricular. 13:10 Now the evidence is very, very shaky and crumbling. 13:14 Just wanted to ask you guys, did you have any questions 13:17 for Dr. Ashton, you know, with regards to this idea that 13:21 evolution is fact and science really says that this is the 13:27 way that life came about? 13:28 Look, I was actually going to ask you, just in relation to 13:33 tertiary education for scientists and, I guess, 13:36 how that's structured, because I'd always thought that 13:38 scientists were, almost by definition, taught to 13:41 question that data. 13:44 Yeah, to question theories, to question conclusions, 13:47 and test things again and again to prove science. 13:50 So when you're talking about evolution just being 13:52 taught as a fact without any references, 13:54 and that kind of thing, I'm just, yeah, wondering, I guess, 13:58 how they are taught to think. 13:59 Are they taught to think critically? 14:01 Does this happen with other theories or is it just evolution 14:04 that you see this happening with? 14:07 I'm wondering if there's maybe just an agenda behind 14:09 the teaching of evolution. 14:11 Well, I don't think there's necessarily an agenda, 14:15 but most scientists are going to teach evolution 14:19 because that's what they've been taught. 14:21 They've been taught it in their science class, 14:23 they've had to examine it. 14:24 They haven't actually been taught to question it. 14:28 And really, in a way it has become a sacred cow 14:32 by scientists who are fairly political. 14:34 So we have certain groups of scientists that are 14:37 fairly political, and that they are definitely 14:40 pushing an agenda that God must be kept out of the classroom. 14:44 That all the explanations of the physical world 14:47 have physical explanations. 14:49 There is no supernatural. 14:51 There is no non-material existence. 14:54 Now one of the areas that challenges this, of course, 14:56 is the mind, is consciousness. 14:59 And Thomas Nagal, professor of philosophy 15:01 at the University of New York, has questioned this recently 15:05 in the book, Mind and the Cosmos, 15:07 because that's a non-material entity. 15:10 And he has actually begun to question that 15:14 the Darwinian explanation can actually explain things. 15:18 In fact, now a large number of scientists, over 1000 scientists 15:23 who have doctorate qualifications in the area 15:26 related to biology, molecular biology, zoology, paleontology, 15:30 and so forth, have signed a statement that they 15:33 are skeptical that Darwin's theory can actually explain 15:38 the diversity of life on earth. 15:40 And they have set up a website, dissentfromdarwin.org, one word. 15:46 So over 1000 scientists have signed that now. 15:49 And I think this is what's happening, is that scientists 15:52 are now feeling a little bit more freedom now 15:54 and are stepping out. 15:56 Whereas, if you go back, say, 10 years ago, 15:58 if a scientist spoke out against this, 16:00 he was likely to lose his job. 16:02 And I think there was evidence for this, for example, 16:06 when Dr. Avital, who was the chief scientist 16:10 for the Israeli Ministry of Health, was newly appointed, 16:14 and one of the things he said was, "Well, I don't want to ask 16:17 students just being taught that we evolved from monkeys. 16:19 I don't believe we evolved from monkeys. 16:21 I want them to be able to look at other options." 16:24 He was then immediately asked to resign. 16:27 Sacked, in fact. 16:29 So that's a, you know, very high level. 16:31 You know, Israel, a very high standard of education. 16:34 Their chief scientist within their ministry of education 16:37 questioned evolution, and there was such a protest by a 16:41 small number of other scientists. 16:43 And that led to him being sacked. 16:45 So that's the background that some scientists 16:47 have been operating in. 16:49 So then following on from that, I mean, we're often told that 16:52 the mechanism for evolution is natural selection. 16:55 And that's telling us the way that everything is able to 16:58 evolve and become what it is. 17:00 You know, from microbe to microbiologist. 17:03 You know, so talk us through that. 17:05 Would you explain your perspective on natural selection 17:08 and actually what that does? 17:11 Well, this is probably an area that we're going to take 17:16 a lot more time to get into. 17:21 But we do observe natural selection in nature. 17:24 And that is that, sure, if you have, say for example, dogs, 17:29 and they happen to find there's a really cold snap come over, 17:33 then the dogs with longer hair are going to survive better. 17:36 The others might, you know, freeze out. 17:37 So they'll breed and preserve those genes for long hair 17:41 in that particular cold area. 17:43 So we know, for example, there were ice ages in the past, 17:46 and these sort of things, so any dogs like that 17:49 caught in that sort of environment, they're going to, 17:52 with the short hair, they'll die. 17:54 Another classic example cited on the Smithsonian sight 17:58 is that you've got the example of, say, mice out in a 18:04 desert area, mice migrating to a desert area 18:09 where there's sort of yellow sand, the dark mice are 18:11 going to be more easily picked off by the birds. 18:15 And so, only the pale furred mice are going to breed. 18:19 And so you're going to have a selection which improves 18:21 survival in that area. 18:23 The important aspect of that is, that's not new code. 18:28 That's loss of code. 18:30 It's loss of that genetic information. 18:32 Now this is a very important aspect 18:34 where Darwin's theory proposed two things: 18:37 that you have mutations, and then you have natural selection. 18:42 It's the mutations that's suppose to produce new code. 18:46 The natural selections then, out of all the supposed 18:50 random, you know, out of all the different types 18:53 of new organisms that were supposed to arise, 18:56 natural selection would then select for the best ones, 18:59 because the environment would destroy the others. 19:02 They wouldn't survive very well. 19:03 And so, natural selection is not a way of producing 19:06 new organisms. 19:08 It's a way of just eliminating the ones that aren't surviving. 19:12 So the whole theory of evolution powerfully depends 19:15 on the mechanism of mutations being able 19:18 to produce new organisms. 19:20 And that's its weak point. 19:22 To date, there's no evidence that happens. 19:26 - Yeah, Dr. John, I have a question. 19:28 I was wondering, earlier on you talked about this 19:31 theory of evolution where assertions are made, 19:34 but there's no real scientific data or papers 19:37 to support the underlying mechanisms to make it happen. 19:41 I guess the question that I'm having... 19:42 I mean, there's even papers that disprove 19:45 those mechanisms, and things like this. 19:46 So, the question I'm wondering is why, in the scientific world, 19:51 do people, do scientists just not know about this? 19:55 Are they disingenuous in not, you know, dealing with this data 19:59 and this new information, or you know, is it something else? 20:02 Why is there so much skepticism or lack of acceptance 20:09 of some of these, or questioning of evolution? 20:12 Well, let me give you a personal experience. 20:17 Back in about 2006, the Discovery Institute in America 20:23 which promotes intelligent design circulated 20:26 DVDs on the evidence for intelligent design in nature 20:31 to all the high schools in Australia. 20:33 And the biology teacher's association of Australia 20:37 put in full page advertisements saying, "Don't show this DVD. 20:42 We think that it's not scientific," and so forth. 20:45 And there were quite a few discussion articles 20:48 about this in scientific journals. 20:51 And one of those articles was published in, 20:54 Chemistry in Australia, which is the Royal Australian 20:57 Chemical Institute journal. 20:59 And in that, there was a professor who spoke up and said, 21:02 "Well, look, if we taught intelligent design, 21:04 we would need to teach spoon bending, alien abduction, 21:08 you know, astrology." 21:10 All these crazy things. 21:11 And I thought, this is so wrong. 21:13 They are highly educated scientists, such as myself, 21:16 who recognize the overwhelming evidence 21:19 for creation as opposed to evolution. 21:21 So I sent in an article to, Chemistry in Australia, 21:25 titled, A Creationist's View of the Intelligent Design Debate. 21:31 And I listed my evidence and I cited my references. 21:35 About ten references referring to the historical and 21:38 peer review literature supporting my position. 21:41 As soon as that journal came out, which was the April 2007 21:46 issue of Chemistry in Australia, a number of scientists 21:50 in Australia wrote to the Royal Australian Chemical Institute 21:52 and said, "Professor Ashton made up arguments." 21:56 "Professor Ashton has used debunked arguments." 22:00 Essentially called me a liar and said, 22:02 "This is going to damage your reputation." 22:04 So they pulled that article, even though it was a 22:07 feature article in the journal and it had been peer reviewed, 22:12 and I had made the corrections according to the reviewers. 22:15 And so, of course, they couldn't recall the journal, 22:16 but the online issue deleted that. 22:20 And so, in the following issue, the May issue 2007 22:27 of, Chemistry in Australia, they published the letters 22:31 by those three scientists. 22:33 And that's essentially how I know what they said. 22:37 Now what I decided to do was ring them up 22:39 and have a talk to them. 22:40 Because, you know, I'm a scientist. 22:42 If you have a problem with what I'm saying, 22:44 show me where I'm wrong. 22:45 I'm interesting in learning. 22:46 Now a couple of them I couldn't get through to, 22:48 but one guy I did get through to. 22:50 And I spoke to him and I said, "Look, I'm Dr. John Ashton. 22:54 I understand you weren't very happy with my article in, 22:56 Chemistry in Australia." 22:58 And he, you know, he sort of changed his tact, 23:02 and I said, you know, "You claim that I'm wrong." 23:05 And I said, "Where's the evidence that I'm wrong?" 23:07 And his reply was, "Well, we don't have the evidence 23:11 at the moment, but we will." 23:14 I mean, what sort of evidence is that, you know? 23:17 Jesus is coming again, and He will. 23:20 You know, I'm going to put my faith in Jesus 23:22 coming again, you know. 23:23 Not in a crazy theory that they don't actually have evidence. 23:28 But this gives you an idea of the political oomph 23:30 that some of the people have. 23:33 And what they're trying to do was, at that stage, was to 23:36 stop scientists from publishing in reputable journals. 23:39 I had a reputable reputation. 23:41 And this censorship has been occurring for some time, 23:44 but it's being broken down now as more leading scientists 23:48 are speaking out and saying, "Hang on, guys." 23:51 Like Jerry Fodor, professor of philosophy at 23:55 Rutgers University in the U.S. 23:56 He couldn't get his paper, "Why Pigs Don't Have Wings," 24:00 published in the science journals, so he had to 24:03 publish it the London Review of Books, or whatever. 24:06 So, John, I would be really interested, I mean, the whole 24:09 series we'll be looking at this topic, but could you 24:11 just summarize, you know, since the 1990's, 24:13 which is quite a while ago, scientists and philosophers 24:17 have been identifying reasons why evolution doesn't work. 24:22 Why we should be skeptical about it. 24:24 Could you just maybe give us a bird's eye view, 24:27 a quick skim over, what's the evidence which has been found? 24:30 Well, I think that as we learn more about DNA, 24:34 the structure of DNA, and the molecular machines 24:37 that exist in the simplest cells are just so complex 24:41 they can't arise by chance. 24:42 Even the probability of a simple gene arising by 24:45 the orders of different amino acids coming together, 24:48 mathematicians have looked at it and shown that it's 24:51 astronomically impossible. 24:53 You know, like the probability is less than finding 24:57 a particular atom in a universe, if there was as many universes 25:03 as there are atoms in the universe, 25:05 finding a particular atom in one of those universes. 25:08 It would take a very long time. 25:10 So we know mathematically it's impossible. 25:13 But biologists for some reason don't seem to be able to 25:16 accept that, hang on, these reactions are 25:19 random chemical reactions. 25:21 Therefore, the probabilistic evidence really applies 25:25 to this sort of scenario. 25:27 And it doesn't work. It's absolutely impossible. 25:29 That's the main reason. 25:30 Plus, we're not finding the evidence. 25:32 There's no mechanism yet. 25:34 And you also mentioned in your book that there's not only 25:36 sociological reasons to believe in evolution now, 25:40 but there were sociological reasons to accept evolution 25:46 back in Darwin's time. 25:47 There was this social kind of situation which led them 25:51 to really want to accept it. 25:53 Could you just, what was it in Darwin's time, 25:55 what were they thinking about 25:56 that made them want to accept evolution? 25:58 Yeah, sure, well that was the development of the 26:00 mechanical worldview. 26:02 Machines had just been developed and they were really taking off 26:06 in the 1800's; the steam engine and all these sort of things. 26:09 That was a massive scientific development of machines. 26:12 And Darwin's theory provided a mechanical model for life. 26:17 That was the clinch. 26:18 It was a mechanical model that showed evolution. 26:20 They saw the evolution of machines, and now they had a 26:24 mechanical model for life. 26:25 And that just took off. 26:28 I guess a question for you guy's panel, 26:31 how do you feel when you hear about top scientists 26:34 like the chief scientist in the Israeli state government 26:39 being sacked because they simply questioned evolution? 26:42 Just seems very unscientific. 26:44 Science is the pursuit of knowledge and information 26:46 and testing, and it just seems very emotional. 26:50 And yeah, it just doesn't seem... 26:52 - It's very unscientific, yeah? - Yeah. 26:55 I think it's quite outrageous when you consider that 26:57 in the very recent past, you know, scientists believed in 27:00 things like spontaneous generation, and they believed in 27:03 things like a flat earth, you know. 27:05 To have a theory that can't be questioned, 27:08 and you'll be sacked if you question it, 27:09 I think is quite outrageous. 27:11 Without protecting freedom of speech, we cannot 27:14 have a development and further understanding 27:16 of these critical issues. 27:19 As you can see, this is a really, really important topic. 27:21 And I can imagine that you wish you were actually here with us. 27:24 Well, the good news is, you can join us by getting 27:28 Dr. John Ashton's book, Evolution Impossible. 27:32 You can order it through a number of online book stores 27:35 right around the world, which is really good. 27:38 What a fascinating discussion! 27:39 We're only just getting into the topic. 27:42 We will be back next time to dig deeper into the theory 27:46 that Darwin developed which literally changed the world. 27:50 We look forward to seeing you next time. |
Revised 2020-02-04