Is Evolution Viable? W/ Dr. Jason Lisle

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host, Eli Ayala. And today I have my guest, Dr. Jason Lyle, who's going to be joining me in just a moment. Those who are familiar with Dr. Lyle, he has the wonderful website, Biblical Science Institute, where he really comes at the whole enterprise of science from a biblical perspective.

A Christian Worldview for Science and Origins

He is very intentional about grounding what he does within the context of a Christian world and life view. And I think it's very important when we're talking about things like science and how to apply biblical principles to that enterprise.

So folks, if you're interested in those sorts of things, especially coming from a presuppositional perspective, you will very much appreciate Dr. Lyle's website and the many articles that he has there as well.

He also has many, many videos on YouTube, whether he puts them up himself in his own site or he does interviews like this. He's got a lot of material out there that I'm sure folks will find very useful.

As you know, his focus tends to be on astrophysics and things like that and Big Bang cosmology and how he comes at that topic from his perspective. You know, you have the whole old earth, young earth debates and things like that.

He's very much conversant in that. But I actually invited Dr. Lyle on to talk about a different yet related topic, and that's the topic of evolution. And we will be sure to have him in just a few moments kind of define the categories for us so that we can talk about this in a meaningful and clear way because it is a very important topic, especially when we're dealing with issues of our origins, where we come from.

It really is very much related to where we are going and the importance of living the life and making sure that we're intentional, standing on top of the authority of God's word. These are all very important and related issues.

So I'm very much looking forward to hearing what Dr. Lyle has to say. But before we get there, I just want to remind folks that we had Revealed Apologetics just recently reached 5 ,000 subscribers on YouTube.

Thank you so much for those who have supported, whether financially, doing the thumbs up or putting a nice comment, I very much appreciate it. Whether you're a believer and you're eating all this stuff up and using it in your own context, or you're an interested unbeliever who's been following along and respectfully interacting in the comments, I thank all of you guys for your support.

So in celebration of the 5 ,000 subscribers, I have gathered together a very random and mixed crowd of apologists that will actually be on a live stream with me together to do a huge Q &A. It's gonna be an entire Q &A, and it is comprised of both presuppositional apologists,.

Classical apologists,.

And I thought it would be interesting to get people who you don't expect on the same screen together. And of course, as questions come in, you'll see some of the unique apologetic methods kind of come out in how we answer those questions.

So we're not debating each other, but I thought it'd be a great opportunity for people to see how people from within different apologetic methods address some apologetic questions. So I hope you guys are excited about that.

That's going to be on July 20th at 9 p .m. Eastern. Also, part two of the study question series on Greg Bonson's book, Against All Opposition. I'll be making that video. All of my notes are set up there, my PowerPoint slides, and I will be putting out part two for folks to follow that along.

That is this book right here, Against All Opposition by Greg Bonson, chapter two. There are 11 chapters. So my goal is to do an 11-part series on the, pardon, on the study questions in this book. So please, you don't wanna miss those.

Lastly, I've been writing an apologetics devotional series. Day two is available on revealedapologetics .com. If you are looking for just an easy to read devotional with some apologetic and biblical application, both of those, day one and day two, are available on the website.

All right, well, without further ado, I would like to introduce Dr. Lyle on the screen with me. How are you doing, Dr. Lyle?

I'm very well, thanks.

How about you?

I'm doing well, thank you. And I just want to thank you again for coming on. Every time you come on, Dr. Lyle, everyone always says, when is Dr. Lyle gonna be back on? So people really enjoy what you have to say.

I don't know, maybe it's your cool shirts or the background, there are books in the background. People like you, man.

Good to hear.

All righty.

Well, we're talking about an interesting topic, evolution. I was just telling you before we went live that I had an interesting reaction by people on Twitter and various other platforms. People surprised that this is still an issue, right?

Is evolution creation still a thing? I think there are even Christians who affirm evolution. And as you know, it definitely is an issue that is still very much important and apologetically relevant. So I just want to, before I get into my questions, why don't you share a little bit about your background, even though it's not specifically on evolution, and then maybe explain to us some of your experience in dealing with evolution within your own apologetic context.

Okay, well, fortunately, I'm blessed to have been brought up in a Christian home. My parents are believers, and most of my extended family really are Christians. And I feel very, very, I don't take that for granted.

I know not everybody has that. And so I was introduced to Christ when I was very young. I received him as my Lord and Savior when I was about six or seven years old. And I didn't know as much about theology as I know now, but I knew enough to know that I was a wicked sinner and that Jesus had taken my place on the cross.

If I would repent of my sin and trust in him, he would save me. So I believe I was saved at that point, and I grew in my faith. I was also very interested in science. That's just something that the Lord put in me, astronomy in particular, but some scientists, they really like their field and they just ignore all others.

I'm not like that. I like them all. I think they're all fascinating. Biology and geology, it's all amazing to me. And so I love science. And when I was then in probably middle school, well, certainly by the time I was in high school, I was introduced to evolution.

And I was taught that that was the scientific view of how humans came about. And I knew that was contrary to God's word. And so that was my first clash there. I knew I had to deal with this because if I was gonna be a scientist, I had to deal with these claims that evolution is scientific, that creation isn't.

I came to find that that's not a defensible position. And so, but that's where my interest began. And then it was really in college where I really started getting into it. I really started researching the science that lines up with creation, which all science does when you understand it, when you have the proper presuppositions.

And so that's when I really got serious about it. And I started sharing this with others as well. I started sharing it with my Christian friends, how the evidence really does line up with a literal historical Genesis, the Genesis flood, the fossils and things like that.

It just made sense. And I saw them get excited about it. And that blesses me to see other Christians get really excited about the faith and how our faith, it's not a blind faith. It's a faith that makes sense of the universe around us and makes sense of the science.

Presuppositions Underlying the Scientific Method

Very good.

Now you said something about science makes sense when you have the proper presuppositions. Can you kind of list for us some of the important presuppositions that we bring to the table when doing science?

Maybe that'll be helpful for our conversation as you kind of later on give the Christian response to an evolutionary perspective. What are some of the important presuppositions of the scientific enterprise itself?

Okay, well, we've all heard of the scientific method that you can propose a hypothesis, you can test it, observation, experimentation. So there's an implicit assumption that our observations correspond to reality.

That would be a presupposition that what my eyes inform my brain is basically true. We know that our senses can be fooled under certain circumstances, but God gave us five. And actually more than that, if you consider internal systems and so on, it's pretty amazing.

And from the Christian worldview, I can trust that my senses are basically reliable because they've been designed by God. Now I'm a finite creature. They don't have to be infallible, but they're good enough for what we do.

God made the seeing eye and the hearing ear, the Bible says. And so I'd expect that they are truthful because God is truthful. The idea that when we repeat an experiment over and over again, we get the same result.

We would expect that in a Christian worldview, that's a presupposition. That's the presupposition of uniformity, not to be confused with uniformitarianism, but uniformity simply means there's orderliness in nature.

And that orderliness extends over time and space. And that allows us to do what we call induction, which is a very important part of science, where we draw a general conclusion from specific instances.

And the assumption that allows us to do that, the presupposition is that there are patterns in nature that we can uncover by seeing specific instances of those patterns. And this is something that all scientists assume that, and it's something that has absolutely no secular foundation.

That's something that Dr. Bonson talked about. It's something that David Hume tried to answer unsuccessfully from his secular perspective. How do I know the sun will rise tomorrow? And of course I have an answer for that, Genesis 8 .22.

God promises that there are certain cycles in nature that will continue as long as the earth remains. And so, and God's in a position to know that because he's beyond time and he's the one that determines reality.

And so of course he's in a position to know that. So those are some of the presuppositions of science along with the capacity of the human mind to be rational. Science presupposes that I can consider the various options and choose the one that is the best.

And all of those, I would argue, are Christian presuppositions. Science is an inherently Christian endeavor. That's not to say non-Christians can't do it, but when they do it, they're borrowing from the Christian worldview because they're borrowing presuppositions that can only be sensibly justified in the Christian worldview.

And if folks are interested in kind of digging deeper, I highly recommend Dr. Lyle's book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation. Again, a defense of the young earth creationist perspective, but also it is an application of presuppositional apologetics, which listeners to this channel will be very interested in.

I'm sure a lot of people already know about this book, but if you haven't, check it out. It is excellent. Excellent as an introductory text as well. If you're kind of just wanting to get a feel as to how presuppositionalism works and specifically how it applies to the whole origins debate, I think this is an excellent place for folks to start.

All right, well, let's jump right in, Dr. Lyle. When we talk about evolution, I mean, even the thumbnail on this show here, I said, the question was, is evolution viable? We know that evolution is really an umbrella term.

It really, what do you mean is evolution viable? What kind of evolution are you referring to? So my first question will be in light of the fact that evolution is an umbrella term, can you define for us what evolution is generally speaking and perhaps get in more of the specifics as to the different kinds of evolution and where they kind of cross hairs with the Christian perspective, where our antennas might be going up and saying, well, wait a minute, I'm not sure if that's a position that we wanna hold.

What Evolution Means and Why Abiogenesis Matters

Okay, the big one, and yes, evolution, the word just kind of means change. And there's lots of things that change, so I don't object to that. But the type of evolution, probably the one that we're gonna go into more depth here would be what we might call common descent.

The idea that all biological life forms on earth are descended from one common ancestor. And so broccoli is your distant cousin in that view. And I like to use that term. Some evolutionists have said, well, you're making fun of us when you say that.

And I'm like, that's what you believe. Isn't it? And well, yeah, that's what we believe. So the idea is that there was a common ancestor billions of years ago, a single celled microbe that itself arose from inanimate non-living matter somehow.

That's sometimes called chemical evolution. That's kind of the first step. And then the rest of it, the descent with modification as this thing reproduces, mutations affect the DNA and that changes the traits that are expressed.

And since this is all accidental, all the mutations are just mistakes. They're not planned. Most of those are harmful to the organism. Some of them are immediately fatal, but those aren't passed on. And the idea is every now and then a good one occurs, one that enhances the survival value of the organism and therefore organisms diversify and change.

And so all the kinds, animals, plants, even fungus, were all descended from a common ancestor. I reject that view, but that's the sort of the neo-Darwinian view of evolution.

Now, I've often heard people kind of separate in the debate this issue of abiogenesis and evolutionary progression from simple to more complex. Or someone will say evolution just describes how organisms have changed and adapted through time.

But the issue of where life came from is really a separate issue. And I've seen some evolutionists, and let me clarify, naturalistic evolutionists. Theistic evolution is a different thing. And Dr. Lyle and myself would take issue with that perspective as well.

But let's kind of shift, just focus on naturalistic evolution. I see many people try to distance themselves from the question of abiogenesis. Is that an intentional distancing or is it just truly, that's just irrelevant to the evolutionary model?

It's very intentional. I remember I was talking with Eugenie Scott one time and she brought that up and I thought that was interesting. I can understand why these secularists do not wanna talk about chemical evolution.

And it's because there's just no good answer for that. It violates a law of nature, the law of biogenesis. Life always comes from life. We've seen no exceptions to that. And yet evolution is predicated on a supposed exception to that law.

There's no good evidence that that could happen or that it has happened. And so I can understand why they'd wanna skip that. But then I like to point out to them, but that is the first step. For anything else to follow, in your view, you believe that there was once no life in the universe anywhere, and now there is.

And so you have to get life from non-life. And you can say, well, that's a separate question. Okay, but in order for what follows to be even remotely rational, that step has to be possible. And I'd like you to justify that, please.

So yeah, I mean, it's fine if they wanna separate them as different questions, but my point is they're both required, both chemical evolution and then the neo-Darwinian evolution that follows. Both are required in order for the secular view to be even remotely rational.

Now, I noticed that in this whole creation evolution debate, a lot of people, especially from the people attacking the young earth creationist perspective, they kind of hand wave it as irrelevant. And I'm very familiar with this.

Even if we're not talking about younger creationism, older creation or whatever, you will see many skeptics just hand wave a view as though waving your hand magically makes the issue go away. So with that said, is the creation evolution debate a closed case?

For a lot of people, this is just kind of like, oh, this again, this is kind of like, we're done, evolution along the lines as to how we would disagree with it, right? It's a closed case. It has been proven, it is demonstrated.

Without a doubt, you're kind of irrational and unscientific if you deny this. Is the creation evolution debate a closed debate? Because I've heard some comments to the contrary. How would you speak to that?

Well, in my mind, it is closed because God has spoken. And so God's a creationist and he has told us how he made the universe. He didn't give us a lot of details, but the details he gave us are true and they can be trusted.

And so in a sense, it is a closed issue. And I kind of feel, it's kind of funny the way you put that because that's kind of how I feel. I'm like, we've demonstrated this. It's not only that God's word teaches this, but we've shown how the science lines up with it.

Why are you still thinking that evolution in the Darwinian sense is even remotely possible? Haven't we, this has been, in my view, this has been established since 1985 when Bonson proved that Stein was wrong because Bonson wasn't just defending the existence of God.

He said that in his debate. He said, I'm defending the Christian worldview as a system of thought. And that includes creation. And so in a sense, by the impossibility of the contrary, it's been proved.

That being said, not everyone has been convinced of that proof. Not everyone has even heard that proof. And in fact, most people have gone through a public education system where they have simply been indoctrinated to believe that evolution has been proved beyond question.

And they don't really know the details. If I ask them, how do you know that? Well, fossils, I've asked them, which fossils? They don't know. They've just been told that that's the case. And so there is, in the minds of people, this is not settled.

That is, there are a number of people in the world today that still believe in evolution. I would argue they shouldn't. And of course, there are many people that believe in creation as well.

Now I would imagine people listening to this, maybe some unbelievers will listen to what you just said and said, that's ridiculous. Dr. Lyle, you're out of your mind. Evolution is the majority position in academia today.

You know, you, Dr. Lyle, you're the one that is on the outskirts of believing something that is akin to say, believing in a flat earth.

You've heard all this.

I mean, some Christians who disagree with you will say something along those lines. So how would you respond to that? I mean, a lot of Christians feel intimidated by holding to a creationist perspective because they feel overwhelmed by the majority of very brilliant secular scientists who hold to the theory of evolution.

How would you encourage a Christian who's struggling with that?

Yeah, that's a, it's an error in logic. It's an appeal to majority or an appeal to authority. In this case, they're kind of combined. But just because the majority of people believe something doesn't make it true.

And in fact, every scientific discovery that's ever been made has gone against what the majority believed. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a discovery. It would have been merely a confirmation. And so if my point is, if everybody had that attitude, science would come to a standstill.

There would be nothing new to be discovered and we wouldn't make any progress. So that's really kind of an anti-scientific way of thinking about things. And I'm not suggesting we ignore what the secularists say, but I do think we need to interpret that data.

And we need to recognize that they have a worldview that controls how they're understanding the evidence. And by the way, I've had enough conversation with scientists. This would surprise most non-scientists, but most scientists, if you ask them why they believe in evolution, will say it's because all the other scientists believe in evolution.

So it's interesting that scientists, you'd think that we would be above that kind of reasoning, but we're not because we're human beings. And it is our nature to get intimidated when the majority of people believe something.

The Bible says the fear of man brings a snare, and it really does when we get intimidated, but by what even very intelligent people say, when those people go against God's word, we stand on God's word.

And of course,.

There are many fine PhD scientists who are creationists as well.

Are you saying so that when you ask most evolutionists, why are you an evolutionist? Of course, they will appeal to what they see as evidence, but they will also appeal to, this is the consensus of scholarship to bolster their perspective, right?

Usually they'll throw out a piece of evidence. They'll say, well, fossils. And I'll say, well, which fossils?

Lucy.

Okay, let's talk about Lucy. Why do you think that she is even remotely supportive of evolution? Because they don't know any of the details. They've heard that. They've heard that fossils support evolution.

They've heard that. But then I'll ask them, okay, so what's the real reason then? It's obviously not fossils because you haven't personally, for the majority, now there are a few that have dug into it.

I understand that. So for the majority of them, they haven't dug into the actual evidence. They're taking it on faith that the people that taught them have looked into the evidence. And most of them haven't looked into the evidence.

They've taken it on faith that the people that taught them and so on. And so the bottom line is when push comes to shove and I really start pushing on them, why do you really believe this? They'll say, well, I just think it's inconceivable that the majority of scientists would be wrong about this issue.

So, okay, so we can always find someone who says, they kind of lean on authority. Well, what about the people who are the actual workers in the specific field who are not just punting to say, well, this guy said this, they've actually done, you know, we can say they've done the work, so to speak, right?

How would we engage with someone like that who says, here, evolution is true because, and they kind of give some of the specific points that they believe to be evidence for their position.

Genetics, Fossils, and the Case for Common Descent

Okay, there are a few, but the number one answer, believe it or not, is still a form of appeal to authority. If you were to ask a geneticist, what is the best evidence for human evolution? If he's really studied the topic, he will probably not say genetics.

He'll say, well, probably fossils. And if you ask a person who's an expert on fossils, what's the best evidence for evolution? They will probably not say fossils. They'll say, well, we think the geneticists have it figured out.

And I've experienced this kind of cross-disciplinary circular reasoning in my own field, in astronomy, where they try to age date things and they rely on the geologists, but the geologists are relying on the astronomers and so on.

I've experienced that in my own educational background. But there are a few exceptions, certainly. And so the two main fields where they would say, well, we think we have evidence for evolution would be either genetics or fossil evidence.

So those would be the areas that we'll probably wanna focus in on.

Okay, now I want you to kind of role play for me. If you could, I hope this isn't too much to ask, but can you pretend for just a few moments to be a naturalistic evolutionist and lay out the strongest case that they make for their position so that we can create a steel man, and then you can put your feet back in the Christian shoes and refute the straw man.

So don't feel like you need to do this quickly. Take your time. If you can put yourself in an evolutionist's shoes right now and say, evolution is true, and then talk from the perspective of someone who is informed on the data and to the best of your ability, demonstrate the obvious truth of evolution, and then we'll kind of have you respond to that.

Because I think that'll be helpful for people to see kind of both of these positions side by side and see the strengths and the weaknesses. Is that too much to ask? I'm asking you to pretend to be an evolutionist.

Yeah, I'm gonna try to, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna actually

You have to have the face.

You have to make a mean, see, Evalu is the bad guy, so you have to make the mean face.

So I'm just kidding.

No, these are good people.

Yes, they are. I'm just messing around.

At least I think they are. And I think I have God's word of support. But in any case, I think one of the arguments they would make is they would make an argument based on similarity, taxonomy, the fact that we can classify organisms, and they fall into a nested hierarchy.

So we know a hierarchy, these two things belong to this, and this and this belong to this, and so on. And there's a hierarchy within a hierarchy. So it's a nested hierarchy. So you can classify humans.

We're in the kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. So we're in the primates, and we're in the mammals, and we're in the vertebrates, and so on. And they would say that that's what we would expect if life evolved from a common organism.

You'd expect to be able to classify it that way. And then I think they would further, they would further try to argue, they would say that not only is it true in terms of physical traits, but genetically.

Genetically, we're more similar to, say, a chimpanzee than a lizard, and more similar to a lizard than a fruit fly, for example. And so they would say that genetics, the genetic code also falls into a nested hierarchy.

And so they would say that that, then a support of common descent. So that's where they would take it on terms of the genetics, I think. And they might make some specific cases like the supposed chromosome two fusion that happens.

I don't know if you're interested in that. We can talk about that.

Yeah, I mean, so you've given broad kind of, this is what they would appeal to. Do you think you can give some specific examples that they appeal to to justify those broader points that you just used to summarize their position?

Yeah, one specific example is they'd say that, because we're supposed to be related to the great apes. And so apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Human beings have 23. And so at some point, we lost a chromosome.

What happened there? And so they've claimed that what happened is in, because they think that the thing we're descended from would have a genome similar to a chimpanzee, that it's probably our nearest living relative.

And they would say that the chromosomes 12 and 13 on the chimpanzee fused. You see, so two of the chromosomes came together and there are certain segments in our chromosome two that kind of line up with the chimpanzee's chromosomes.

They've actually renamed them chromosome 2A and 2B in chimpanzees because of the alleged similarity to these chromosome two. So that's one specific example that they would make. That's in terms of genetics.

And then in terms of fossil evidence, they would have to do a little more hand-waving, but they would say that there are certain transitional features. And this would primarily be coming from people who are not experts on paleoanthropology, but they would say that there is quite a range in terms of the different fossils that we find of human beings, which is true.

And they would try to make a case that we go from a more ape-like form to a more human-like form. Now, I've studied the fossils enough to know they're gonna have a tough time making that case, but that's what they would argue.

And then they would do that. They would say, well, maybe we haven't found all the missing links, but nonetheless, in broad strokes, there are certain organisms that, because of this nested hierarchy, you can find that in the fossil record too.

And so they would, and we tend to find certain organisms below other organisms. Statistically, if you find a trilobite, it's likely going to be in a lower layer than, for example, a bird, as just one example.

So there's a statistical order, and they would say that represents time. That represents millions of years of organisms. And we see that they change as you go up. So there you go, evolution in action.

And then third, they would try to argue philosophically that creation should be excluded a priori because it's not naturalistic. So many evolutionists

And just to interrupt you real quick, I do apologize. You're talking there, at this point, some evolutionists who don't see that as an option. You have other people who say, well, maybe God could be involved, but I'm not really speaking to that.

But there are people who are more vocal to make that point, that God is not really a good addition to this whole explanation. I just wanted to make that qualification because I know not all evolutionists would necessarily say that.

Well, and it's like creationists. There's different varieties of evolutionists. You can't get to a degree on exactly everything. I'm trying to speak in terms of what most of them would say. And I think a lot of them are motivated by either metaphysical or methodological naturalism.

There are some who would say, well, I believe in God. God exists, but we can't bring him into the equation when we do science. And they would say, because you'd never know if you were discovering something about the universe or if God's just messing with you, right?

So you have to pretend that God doesn't exist when you do your science. So they would embrace methodological naturalism and in some cases, empiricism. And I think the more epistemologically astute evolutionists tend to fall back on philosophy as their reason for rejecting creation a priori.

And then they would say, and what is the best naturalistic explanation for life? Evolution. I actually agree with them on that point. If you exclude the supernatural, evolution's kind of the best thing you've got going for you.

Not that it's good, but it's the best you can come up with.

Right, so it's the only game in town, so to speak. If there is no designer and creator, then evolution is the best theory available that explains the wide variety of biodiversity and things like that.

If God is excluded. And of course, I know there are theistic evolutionists that throws a monkey wrench into this whole discussion. I wanna keep that away for a moment there. Okay, so in your opinion then, from the secularist perspective, what is, as they see it, the strongest data point in favor of the evolutionary perspective?

So from the perspective of someone who believes it's true, sure, there are some points that are debated and they're tweaking this and tweaking that. And there are some issues where people kind of disagree as to how that all works out or the mechanisms, whether natural selection and genetic mutation are sufficient mechanisms to drive the process.

But what is the strongest data point that most evolutionists will appeal to and say, this is really the strongest piece of data that we have that strongly gives the impression that evolution really, it's the best explanation for this entire biodiversity that we see in the world today?

A number of the scientists, I think, if genetics is not their field, they would probably say genetics. And maybe even where that is that field. They would say that the fact that organisms can be classified in a nested hierarchy, both in terms of physiology and in terms of genetics.

So that's exactly what we'd expect if evolution were true. And then the ones that are a little more epistemologically astute would say, because we're here, because we're here. And the alternative is unthinkable.

And there've been some that have admitted that, Lewontin, I think, was the one who said, we must not allow a divine foot in the door.

He says

Yes, I remember that famous quote.

All right, when, okay, so you have, just as you have like popularizers, people who hold to evolution, they popularize the view. They're not really kind of professional scientists. You also have Christians who are trying to defend the faith.

They're not experts, but they're popularizers, or they're just Christians just trying to defend the Christian faith. And so they'll pick up a book, maybe by Answers in Genesis, or maybe some Christian perspective where when they hear an evolutionist say, evolution is true, and they point to the fossils to support their view, many Christians, their knee-jerk reaction is, oh, you've never found the missing link, right?

You know, you've never, you know. When Christians say that, I often hear evolutionists say, you're just ignorant. There's plenty of evidence in the fossils for the evolutionary perspective. What is that evidence that they appeal to?

Not to say that it's legitimate evidence, because we understand the importance of interpretation of the data, but what is the specific thing in the area of fossils that everyone says, look, it's right here, man, what's your problem?

Well, with regard to human evolution, there are certain, we find about something on the order of 8 ,000 remains of humans or creatures that look like they're human anyway.

Okay.

And they would say that there is a progression that some are more ape-like and some are more like modern Homo sapiens. And I'm happy to talk about some of the details of that if you're interested, because the most common view now is that Lucy, which is an Australopithecus, Australopithecus afarensis, that's supposed to be a human ancestor, and that's supposed to have evolved into Homo habilis, and that's supposed to have evolved into Homo erectus, and then Heidelberg man, and then branched off into Neanderthals.

They used to think Neanderthals perhaps were ancestor, but I don't think anybody believes that anymore, that they think that that's probably a separate shoot. But with the exception of the first two, Australopithecus, the Lucy, and Homo habilis, which I think is kind of a junk taxon, it has some fragments of apes in it and some fragments of humans, and you get a new, it really is an ape man, but it never existed, if you see what I'm saying.

It's parts from both, but primarily non-humans, primarily non-humans in the Homo habilis. The other ones, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, those are all humans. And I think

I'm impressed that you could pronounce all this. It sounds like you're speaking in tongues, man.

I'm like

Well, I'm not a paleoanthropologist. I'm not sure I'm pronouncing them correctly.

So take it

They sound right.

You could fool me.