[00:00:04] Speaker A: ID the Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
[00:00:11] Speaker B: Well, no doubt you've heard the popular claim that humans and chimps are only 1% different genetically, suggesting we must be evolutionary cousins with them, just slightly modified chimps. While this statistic has been widely circulated in science, journalism, politics, popular science, public discussions for a lot of years now, but a groundbreaking new study in Nature earlier this year reported significantly higher genetic differences between humans and apes than previously claimed. Welcome to Ivy the Future. I'm your host, Andrew McDermott, and today I get to talk with Dr. Casey Luskin about a new article he's written in the New York Post calling on the nation's largest science museum, the Smithsonian Museum of Natural history in Washington D.C. to correct and update their exhibits, which are miseducating the public on the history of human beings. Luskin is associate Director of Discovery Institute's center for Science and Culture. He holds a PhD in geology from the University of Johannesburg, as well as graduate degrees in science and law, giving him expertise in both the scientific and the legal dimensions of the debate over evolution. Dr. Luskin has been a California licensed attorney since 2005, practicing primarily in the area of evolution education in public schools, as well as defending academic freedom for scientists who face discrimination because of their support for intelligent design. Casey, welcome.
[00:01:37] Speaker A: Great to be with you, Andrew. Thanks for having me.
[00:01:39] Speaker B: Well, Casey, congratulations are in order. You just published an article in the New York Post where you talk about a number of things that the Smithsonian Institution gets wrong on human origins and in their museum in Washington D.C.
so that's awesome you've had this article come out. Let's review what you cover in it, some of the points you make and we can talk about how came up and what you hope to do next with it. Now you raise a number of lines of evidence and issues where the Smithsonian's human origins exhibit gets the evidence wrong regarding human evolution. The first issue you raise is the percent human chimp genetic similarity.
What exactly does the Smithsonian claim about human chimp genetic similarity?
[00:02:23] Speaker A: Yeah, so Andrew, I guess I've kind of been collecting claims that the Smithsonian Institution makes about human origins for a long time. As you may recall, we had a conference in D.C. in 2023 and had the opportunity to actually go to the Smithsonian Museum, took a lot of photographs and kind of really was curious about what are they saying about human origins. My wife was actually in in D.C. for a friend's graduation that was right there on the Washington Mall back in May and I had her go back and check and confirm. Okay. Are some of these claims still there. So, yeah. What do they say about the percent genetic similarity between humans and chimps? Well, you may not be too surprised given, you know, we've all heard that old statistic that humans and chimps are maybe only 1 to 2% genetically different. We've been talking about this a lot here on ID the Future and also on Evolution News lately. So the Smithsonian is no exception to this rule. When you walk into their human origins exhibit, you are immediately confronted with this big picture on the wall of a human being and chimpanzees and other and other apes, and it says, you and chimpanzees 98.8% genetically similar. And then there's a little caption further down in that exhibit that says there's only about a 1.2% genetic difference between modern humans and chimpanzees throughout much of their genetic code. So there you have it. That's Smithsonian presenting this old 1% genetic difference or 1.2% genetic difference icon of evolution. And they're very explicitly using this as an argument for human chimp common ancestry.
[00:03:53] Speaker B: Yeah, well, at the very least it needs updated. And at worst, this is something that's been miseducating for a long time. Now, we've heard this statistic before. Can you give us some other examples of mainstream sources arguing for human evolution based upon this supposed claim that we're 1% genetically different?
[00:04:13] Speaker A: Yeah, sure. So we're going to talk in just a second, Andrew. We're going to recap the, the big paper in Nature that came out in April showing that we're more like 15% genetically different from chimpanzees. But sometimes the response you get from people is they will say, well, look, we've known for a long time that we're more than 1% genetically different from chimps. And my response is, well, you're right. We have known this for a long time. We, we didn't know it was 15% exactly until just recently, but we've known for a long time that we're way more than 1% genetically different. Given that fact, you have to ask yourself the question, why are all these very prestigious and very mainstream scientific sources claiming there were only 1% genetically different? You know, don't attack me.
You know, we should be critiquing these various sources that have been saying that we're only 1% genetically different. It's funny how our evolutionist friends are so quick to forget about this. So let's remind our friends of some examples from recent memory of people saying that we're only 1% genetically different from chimpanzees. Bill Nye, in his book Undeniable, which came out in 2014, he said we share around 98.8% of our gene sequence with chimpanzees. This is striking evidence for chimps and chumps to have a common ancestor. So he's very explicitly saying that we are, you know, 99, 98.8% genetically similar to a chimpanzee. Another example, there's a book that was written, published by University of Chicago Press in 2008. I think it was authored by something like seven university professors. And the title of this book is 99% Ape How Evolution Adds Up. So they're very clearly using that 99% genetic similarity statistic as an argument for evolution. In fact, you can see on the COVID that there's this drawing of Darwin sort of being portrayed like an ape, as if this, you know, this great scientist, Charles Darwin, he was obviously a great scientist and he was a human being, but they're making him look like, oh, he's really just another kind of ape because he's so similar to apes, genetically speaking. And the book says of the roughly 3 billion letters of the genetic code, the difference is just 1.06%. And so they're saying the difference is, quote, 1% of 3 billion. So they're very explicitly saying when you look at the entire genetic code of human beings, you know, not just the gene coding DNA, but the whole genome, that only 1% is different from chimpanzees. And on the back they say that Darwin was mocked for suggesting that humans have apes for ancestors. But every scientific advance in the study of life in the last 150 years has confirmed the reality of evolution, unquote. That's an exact quote. They're saying that every scientific advance has confirmed evolution. So they are very strongly put promoting evolution in this book. And as you can see the title, one of their main arguments is that we are, quote, unquote, 99% ape, genetically speaking. We could give other examples. There was an article in Science in the year 1998 that said that humans and chimpanzees share at least 98.5% of their DNA. Financial Times, sort of popular media, very Mainstream Media Source 2012 said we share 98% of our DNA with our nearest living relative, the chimpanzee. We could do this all day talking about sources, you know, the Smithsonian right now as we speak, says that we're 98.8% genetically similar to chimps so we could do this all day. The sources span mainstream scientific journals to academic books to science popularizers to science museums to mainstream media.
And they're all saying that we are 98, 99% genetically same as a chimpanzee. And, and note that many of these sources are explicitly applying this only 1% genetic difference statistic or 2% statistic to all of human DNA, not just to certain protein coding genes. So they're making a very specific claim for, and they're making it as an argument for evolution. And this is where it becomes very interesting when you look at this new Nature paper and what it says the evidence actually shows.
[00:08:04] Speaker B: Yeah, but it's definitely something that's an icon of evolution they've had a lot of fun with. I mean that 1% number, you know, it's easy to remember, easy to spout. And I'd forgotten that Bill Nye said chimps and chumps. I mean they've just had a lot of fun with this one. So it's a little unfortunate that we have to come along now and well, not us, but you know, this, this paper and this update to say, ah, actually let's, let's take a closer look here. Now I know that you and Emily Reeves did a podcast on I do the Future a couple months ago, but what does the evidence actually show about the real percent genetic similarity between humans and chimps?
[00:08:42] Speaker A: Yeah, so this paper was by you et al in Nature, it came out in April this year. And it basically presented complete sequences, what they call telomere to telomere sequences of various ape genomes, including chimpanzees. And these were sequences, genome sequences that were sequenced from scratch, meaning they did not use the human genome as sort of a guide. They as they assembled the genome that had been done actually with some previous drafts of the chimp genome, which made the chimp genome look actually more similar than it actually is to human beings. So this is a first time presenting complete telomere to telomere sequences of the chimp genome and other ape genomes and that they were sequenced de novo. And what it basically found is that we're about, the total is about, we're about 15% genetically different from chimps. So let's break that down.
1.6% of the difference comes from sections that are easy to align. And most of the genome does align pretty well between humans and chimps. So among our two genomes, 1.6% difference. When you talk about what they call single nucleotide variations, those are Basically, you're aligning the two genomes and you get individual nucleotides that are different. However, there are major sections of the genomes that either fail to align with or as they put it, could not be aligned in a one to one manner. So basically there were alignment problems because they were so different or because basically there were sections of one genome, maybe extra copies of a repeat, that were not present in the other. And so they couldn't align them easily. And they found that about 13.3% of the genome had what they called a gap divergence. Basically, there's a gap in one genome compared to the other, and this caused alignment problems. And when you add, you can basically add these two types of differences up. They're just counting percent nucleotides that are different, one being the single nucleotide variation, the other being the, what they call the gap divergence. But, you know, they're both percentages of the total genome that are different. You can add them up. 1.6% plus 13.3% equals 14.9%. So about 15% genetically different between humans and chimps. And they actually used another statistic that they called a progressive cactus alignment. And in that estimate, I think they found that we were somewhere around 15 or 16% genetically different from chimps. So two different methods here of actually doing the analysis gave roughly pretty similar results. We can call it 15% that were genetically different from chimpanzees. So that's obviously far different than what the Smithsonian is claiming when they say that we are only 1.2% chimpanzees genetically different, or 98.8% the same. You know, this is a difference that is greater by, you know, over an over order of magnitude compared to what the Smithsonian and many of these other sources have been claiming. And, you know, we've all heard this statistic, right? Andrew, we don't have to. Like, people are not surprised when we tell them, oh, have you ever heard that claim that we're 99% similar to a chimp, genetically speaking, or that we're only 1% genetically different? People have heard this claim. So why do they resonate with this? Because, because it's been an argument that's been made very frequently to the public. This is nothing new. We're not distorting what many evolutionists have said. Certainly some folks have said, no, the difference is greater. That's good, Good for them. I'm very, very glad that some folks got it right. But what about all the times that people were getting it wrong? This Is the point we're trying to make that this argument for human evolution based upon the claim that we are only 1% genetically different, it's wrong. We are far more than 1% genetically different. And you know, you can argue for evolution if you want, but at least get the numbers right and then we'll go from there and see what the evidence really shows. And so this has become what Jonathan Wells called an icon revolution, basically a very common argument for evolution that is just factually wrong. It's also actually logically wrong. I mean I would argue that the percent genetic similarity between humans and chimps really doesn't tell you anything about whether we share a common ancestor because those genetic similarities, they could be the result of common descent, but they can also be the result of common design where a designer is reusing, you know, similar parts and different designs. So I've going back for many years, I've never thought that the percent genetic similarity really answers very many interesting questions in the debate. But apparently some evolutionists feel otherwise. They think that it makes a very strong argument for evolution. And what we're saying is that that argument is wrong on both. The facts were not 99% similar genetically to that to a chimpanzee. And it's also wrong on the logic because logically speaking, I don't know why the percent genetic similarity makes an argument for human chimp common ancestry. I just don't see that there's a logical argument there. Anyway, this was the first example I gave in the New York Post op ed Andrew, of where the Smithsonian is basically misstating the scientific evidence and getting the evidence wrong as it tries to make a case for human evolution to the public.
[00:13:31] Speaker B: And you don't just talk about genetics in your op ed, you cover other things as well. You also discuss fossils. The first example is Sahelanthropus tchadensis. That's quite a mouthful. What does the Smithsonian say about this fossil species and what does it get wrong?
[00:13:46] Speaker A: Yeah, so the says that Sahelanthropus tchadensis was a quote, early human, in their words, that walked quote on two legs on. The problem is that leading paleoanthropologists dispute this claim. First of all, the idea that Sahelanthropuschadensis was an early human, I think that is quite a stretch to make that claim. It lived probably about 6 million years ago. It was very, very non human like. And to call it an early human is really a gross distortion of the evidence. I don't know how they can justify calling Sahelanthropus tudensis, an early human. But let's just talk about, that's more of a subjective thing. Let's talk about the, that claim that it walked on two legs. There was an article in the journal Nature that came out in 2002 that said that many features of this specimen, of this, of this species, quote, link the specimen with chimpanzees, gorillas, or both to the exclusion of hominids. And they say that Sahelanthropus was an ape. And there was a paper in the Journal of Human Evolution which found that Sahelanthropus had a femur which was like a chimp like quadruped, meaning it didn't walk upright and it probably was not the human ancestor. In fact, there was a quote in the journal New Scientists from a scientist saying that this species is, quote, more similar to a chimp than to any other hominin. And basically it had probably something more like a chimp like body plan. So people have sharply disputed the idea that it was a human ancestor, that it walked on two legs. And the evidence is probably most consistent with being it being a quadruped with a chimp like body plan. Now, Smithsonian gives us no hint of any of this sort of controversy or other very credible scientific views, and instead they just state as if it's a fact that this was an early human that walked on two legs. So I think this is a gross distortion of, or at least, you know, a failure to fully inform the public about the evidence. Sure, you can find paleoanthropologists that would say it was a human ancestor that walked on two legs, but there's some pretty credible scientists that, that disagree with that claim. And Smithsonian gives no hint of that scientific controversy.
[00:15:48] Speaker B: Well, and there are other examples too. What about the australopithecines? The Smithsonian presents them as if they walked upright on the ground, just like we do. But is this universally agreed upon by scientists or is there more to the story here that the Smithsonian's not telling?
[00:16:04] Speaker A: Yeah, again, yeah, you're exactly right, Andrew. They present the australopithecines as, quote, early humans. Once again, even though this, this is not even in the genus Homo, this is from a completely different genus. They had a brain that was about the size of a chimpanzee. So again, I don't know how they're getting away with calling the Smithsonian, calling australopithecines, quote, early humans. But again, they claim they walked upright on the ground, much like we do. And certainly some paleoanthropologists would agree with that claim. But others would. Scientists would disagree, pointing out that australopithecines showed evidence of ape like knuckle walking and only limited capacity to for running. There was an article in Nature in the year 2000 by Collard and Aiello which showed that Lucy had the hand bones of a knuckle walker and not knuckle walked, potentially as chimps and gorillas do. Now, some folks would say that those knuckle walking hand bones that they found in Lucy, that those are just sort of primitive retention from, you know, the old days where the ancestors of Lucy maybe knuckle walked and Lucy actually walked upright. Okay, well, how do you know that? That's an evolutionary interpretation where you're basically dismissing this evidence that Lucy had the hand bones of a knuckle walker through your evolutionary interpretation, saying these are just sort of evolutionary leftovers. The data shows that Lucy had the hand bones of a knuckle walker. And I think it's very widely agreed that they certainly were not capable of running like human beings were. In fact, there's been a lot of evidence that shows that the australopithecines spend a lot of time in trees.
The journal New Scientist said that talking about Lucy, everything about her skeleton, from fingertips to toes, suggests several traits would be very suitable for climbing in trees. Now, the Smithsonian does recognize that they climb trees, but they then leave the viewer with the impression that when they walked on the ground, it was like us. And they don't really, I think, explain just how much time the Australopithecines probably spent in trees. So when Lucy and other Australopithecines were walking on, on upright, how were they walking? Because they probably did have some limited capacity for upright walking. But what's interesting is that the, what's called the bicondylar angle of Lucy's femur and the way her hip bone angles the femur down towards the knee, basically their bicondylar angle was much greater than what we see in human beings. And this would probably be best suited for like, walking on a tree limb where you have one leg walking in front of the other as you're walking along a tree, a tree limb. I think that the best evidence shows that when Lucy and the australopithecines walked upright, it was not on the ground, just like humans do. It might have actually been in trees.
And so I think that there's a lot of controversy here that the Smithsonian leaves off. Again, you can certainly find paleoanthropologists who agree with the Smithsonian's Interpretation. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that there's a lot of evidence here that they're leaving off. In fact, various studies said that Lucy's pelvis, which of course is a very important bone for understanding how she walked, that when it was first discovered, it was quote, badly crushed with quote, distortion and quote, cracking, which led to, quote, error in the reconstruction, creating a very human like sacral plane. And this led one study to say that prevailing views of Lucy's posture are almost impossible to reconcile. To resolve such differences, more anatomical fossil evidence is needed. The available data at present are open to widely different interpretations. Yes, one interpretation is that she walked upright like humans, but another interpretation is that maybe she did not walk exactly as humans do and she had a different kind of locomotion. My personal view is that Lucy probably had a mixture of knuckle walking. She spent a lot of time in trees, and when she was upright walking, I think she was best suited for, for probably walking on tree limbs, certainly not for running around on the ground like human beings do. And again, the Smithsonian gives no hint of any of these scientific controversies and just presents it. If there's this monolithic view that Lucy walked on the ground like we do, and that's certainly not, I think, what the scientific community would say. If you look at the full spectrum.
[00:20:05] Speaker B: Of views now, you also discuss a fun one in your op ed, you talk about how the Smithsonian humanizes apes while apifying humans.
Now, what does one see at the Smithsonian? I mean, you've been there several times. Is this really based upon scientific fact?
[00:20:21] Speaker A: Yeah, that's a great point, Andrew. And this is a fun one. If you go to Smithsonian's human origins exhibit, you will see, for example, that Australopithecus afarensis, that of course is Lucy's species, is portrayed as if she's kind of thoughtfully gazing up at the sky. We can probably get a photo of this on the video here. Another species, Australopithecus africanus, is presented almost. It looks like it's smiling, perhaps you know, somebody's joke or something like that. Yet these australopithecines, they had brains that were about the size of a chimpanzees, maybe just slightly larger. But we have no evidence, no fossil evidence whatsoever that they were capable of abstract thought or certainly humor. So whenever I see these kinds of, you know, reconstructions of hominid fossils that are trying to make them look more like human beings, you know, apifying or humanizing apes and apifying humans I'm always reminded of a comment by a very famous Harvard anthropologist, Ernst Houden. He died many years ago, but here's what he said. He said, alleged restoration of ancient types of man have very little, if any, scientific value and are only likely to mislead the public. So I don't mind them, you know, putting reconstructions. That makes science fun and that, you know, obviously gets people engaged who. With what the scientific evidence says. But when they put this kind of interpretation on there that, you know, Australopithecus Africanus is smiling back at you. I'm sorry, but we have no evidence that they were capable of that kind of humor or something like that. And that, I think, is really making the exact mistake that Ernst Houden talked about.
[00:21:50] Speaker B: Yeah. And because of imagery and 3D models, you know, being in front of visitors, those are potentially going to be more influential in the exhibit than even the written stuff underneath it or next to it.
So you really have to watch with the artistic license when you're trying to convey this information.
Now, your last example is the Smithsonian's claim that humans evolve slowly and gradually. What does the Smithsonian claim here and what does the evidence really say?
[00:22:19] Speaker A: Yeah, the exact sort of display that I have a photo of says we became humans gradually. And the idea is that the, you know, when you look at the fossil record, you see this gradualistic, very Darwinian sort of case for human evolution from hominid fossils. That is certainly not the case. And of course, again, there might be some folks who would agree with that. But you can find leading paleoanthropologists who would sharply disagree with this claim that human evolution was a, quote, unquote, gradual process. The great Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayer said that there is a, quote, large unbridged gap in the fossil record between australopithecines and the first very human like members of our genus Homo. And he goes on to say we're. This is his words, we're in a position of, quote, not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, unquote. Okay, so this is coming from one of the architects of the neo Darwinian model of evolution, acknowledging this large, unbridged gap between the australopithecines and the genus Homo. Another paper by three Harvard paleoanthropologists, they said that while paleoanthropologists generally believe that, you know, we evolved from the australopithecines, they admit that, quote, many details of this transition are obscure because of the paucity of the fossil and archeological records. In fact, another Scientific commentator said that this evidence calls for, quote, a Big bang theory of human evolution. So again, I don't mind the Smithsonian saying, you know, some folks think we evolved gradually, but they leave that as if that is what, you know, the consensus is. And they completely fail to acknowledge these leading evolutionary scientists who say that actually human, the human like body plan, appears very abruptly in the fossil record. And we're actually missing fossils that document this key transition. In fact, that paper by three Harvard paleoanthropologists says that, quote, the transition from Australopithecus to Homo was undoubtedly one of the most critical in its magnitude and, and consequences. And yet again, what do they go on to say? We don't have details of this transition. We have other scientists acknowledging we have a large unbridged gaps right where the human body plan supposedly evolved from our supposed australopithecine ancestors. Why is this not being disclosed by the Smithsonian? And why did they instead tell the public that we evolved gradually when you can find very mainstream, credible scientific sources saying the exact opposite? I think that this is a real problem and that this lack of fossil evidence for human evolution in the fossil record, it definitely contradicts what the Smithsonian is saying. Why is none of this information being disclosed by the Smithsonian's human Origins exhibit? I think it's fair to say that they are misinforming the public about the science on this point.
[00:25:01] Speaker B: Yeah, which is why you sent a letter to the Smithsonian asking them to correct the record.
Why is that important to get these exhibits and educational materials corrected? What's at stake here and how did they respond?
[00:25:14] Speaker A: Well, for one, you know, I'm an American taxpayer, so. So are you. Andrew, Congratulations on getting your citizenship, by the way, a while back, you know, so. So, and probably many of our listeners are taxpayers, whether in the US or some other country. We all want our taxpayers to be supporting, you know, truth and accuracy. And in this case, the Smithsonian, I would argue, is not accurate in its presentation of the scientific evidence regarding human origins at its exhibit. So just for the sake of getting it right, Smithsonian is the nation's premier scientific organization, and a museum promoting these ideas to the public should at least get the very facts right. I think it's wrong to be misinforming the public about the scientific evidence. But of course, this is a very important issue, right? Human origins is a question of profound scientific, sociological, philosophical, and even religious importance. So if you're going to be telling the public about what the scientific evidence says, you've got to make sure you get this. Right. Because this is a very, very important issue, and I think the Smithsonian owes it to the public. Again, it is one of the nation's premier scientific organizations, so why should it not be careful to get the scientific evidence right using taxpayer dollars? And I think it's unfortunate that they. That they. I think they really are promoting a very biased view that often gets the evidence wrong and not exposing people to the full range of scientific views that exist. They did respond to my letter. They didn't acknowledge that the exhibit was wrong, but they said that next time they update the exhibit, they'll take what I wrote them into account. Well, I appreciate that very much, but that sort of was. I felt like it was kind of like a brush off. They're saying, look, when, if and when we update the exhibit. Yeah, we'll look at your letter. They didn't acknowledge that the exhibit was wrong. And who knows when they're going to do an update? I have no idea. They didn't give me any kind of a timeline or anything like that. Just a very short response that I felt like it kind of was a bit of a brush off. So I hope they do take into an account. I hope that's true. And if so, then, you know, credit should go to them for trying to get it right. But this really needs to be corrected sooner rather than later. And again, we've known that we are not just 1.2% genetically different from chimps for a long time. So this really, you know, it's not just a new issue. I think this should have been corrected a long time ago.
[00:27:25] Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. Well, as your op ed points out, there's pressure mounting politically and through legislation, options to really hold the Smithsonian accountable. So hopefully it's going to be sooner rather than later. And, you know, it's also poignant that this summer marks the 100th anniversary of the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925.
Are we living in an era of Scopes in reverse still, or do you think we're getting closer to scientific transparency on some of these issues?
[00:27:54] Speaker A: Yeah, Andrew, you and I talked about that in another podcast we did recently about this being the 100th anniversary of the Scopes trial. And, you know, I just think that it's, you know, very unfortunate because the Scopes trial was, of course, a warning against hiding scientific information about human evolution from the public. What happened in the Scopes trial was the Tennessee state legislature had made it a crime to teach human evolution. Now, of course, we should never criminalize or ban or prohibit the teaching of a scientific idea just because we might disagree with it. Okay, that was a terrible thing that the Tennessee state legislature did. But how ironic that 100 years later, the nation's premier science museum is obscuring scientifically objective and accurate data on the very same subject. So I think that we are living in this era of scopes and reverse, where today it's the evolutionists who hold all the power, and they are really not accurately telling the public what the evidence really says.
So I think that we still have a long ways to go to get to a place where we can have a real conversation with the scientific community and the public over the topic of human evolution. And until that time comes, yeah, we are still living in this era of scopes and reverse.
[00:29:04] Speaker B: Yeah, it's unfortunate, but there are glimpses of hope as well. Well, Casey, thank you for your efforts to hold the Smithsonian accountable. As an American taxpayer and as someone who knows a lot about this topic, I'm grateful for your efforts and our little chat. It's been fun. I will encourage people to check out Casey's New York Post article. We will link to it in the show notes for this episode so you can find it there. Or just hop on the New York Post, type in Casey's name, Casey Luskin, and up it will come. So, Casey, thanks for your time today.
[00:29:37] Speaker A: Thanks a lot, Andrew. Great, great fun talking to you.
[00:29:40] Speaker B: And I should also point out that you've written a whole series on this and you're going to continue to Write
[email protected] that's our flagship news and and commentary website. So you can go there to continue to follow this exciting development in biology and human origins. Well, for ID the Future, I'm Andre German. We'll see you next time.
[00:30:03] Speaker A: ID the Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
