 PZ, as I understand it, most animals fall into one of two big groups, protostones and deuterostones. And these kind of, at an early stage, develop the wrong way round. So the human mouth is homologous to a squid zenus and vice versa. Right. Is that an illustration of this hourglass thing? And how does it work? Because you had the hox genes of the fly and of the tetrapod in the same order. Let me see. Do I have my... It's like I salted the audience with you because that's my next slide. This gentleman right here. Well, I'm glad you enjoyed my article on Uncombed Usain. I just wanted to elaborate on a point I made there and to further comment for my review of this talk. I was wondering if you would perhaps comment on the sheer lack of correlation or congruence between homology and developmental pathways. I can give you several examples of that. Gavin DeBier, for example, talking about structures as obviously homologous as the elementary canal and all vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity in sharks, flora, in lambfries and nukes and so forth. And it strikes me that the only way to get around this is to posit that substantial changes in development have occurred in the very early stages of development. And yet these changes in very early development, we need to occur in very advanced organisms which have a lot of development proceeding them. And furthermore, I would like to point out that it's the end form individual which is unit of selection and so these changes are likely to be evolutionarily fixed in the population and finally the problem that the changes in these very early sequences are likely to be catastrophic to the organismal fitness. Thanks. Well, first let me ask you a question. Aren't you a little bit of a shame to have been responsible for this bullshit? No, I'm serious. No. So you have no sense of shame that you've concocted this series of questions that are built on ignorance? No. Because I don't think it is. Okay, well, let me ask you another question. What you've just done is classic creationism. You've thrown about a dozen different things at me in one question. Could you possibly be lucid enough to distill it down to one question? Yeah. Could you talk about the sheer lack of correlation and congruence between developmental pathways and homologous organs? How do you account for that in evolutionary terms? Give me one example. Yeah, I cited Sir Gavin DeBeer, for example, and talking about structures as obviously homologous to the elementary canal forming in different manners. I'll give you another example if you want. I'll give you the neural tube, for example, as another example. Okay, let's stick with the neural tube. What's the problem with the neural tube? The neural tube is homologous throughout the chord aids. Some of them is permission. It depends on the induction and the underlying not of chord. In others, it doesn't. Do you have no notes? Yeah. I've actually got several papers here, which... No, no, no, let him speak. Okay, sorry, sorry. Okay, let me speak. I've got several papers here which actually document many, many of these examples. But I'd be very grateful if you could answer the question instead of deferring the issue. Okay, well, the first answer is simply that the question is bullshit. This isn't a real question. For instance, when you look at neural tube induction, we know what molecules are behind this. There's a neural circuitry behind it. And we find homology in this neural circuitry in creatures as diverse as a drosophila and a mouse. And you're saying that this homology of the neural circuitry is not present? No, I'm saying that there is homology. They're formed by different developmental pathways. No, that's what I'm specifically talking about. The genetic circuitry that underlies the formation of the neural tube in its early stages is homologous between drosophila and mice. Maybe so, but that completely invalidates your question. You're asking me to explain how they're different, and I just told you that they're not different. They're the same. And then you say maybe so, but where does your question go from there? I mean, I've got dozens of papers. I've actually got three on it, but dozens more at home, which actually document that what I'm saying is actually correct. Wait, you cited Gavin De Beer. How old is that paper? Sorry, I've got one from 2005. The Gavin De Beer paper. No, I've got Gavin De Beer on me somewhere. The one from Gerard Schultz is from 2005. Okay, so now you want me to read this paper. I'll tell you what, you can leave the paper with me and I will read it. And you can blog about it on your pharyngeal. If it's at all interesting. Okay. I kind of doubt that it is. And I'll just go on to somebody else with the question, but I will tell you that you should be ashamed. This is disgraceful. Okay, Peezy, if you've recovered from that skewering you just got there. Here's this gentleman right here.