I haven't listened to the whole thing, and I am not a biologist. However, I listened to short sections from different parts of the conversation, and three aspects of it seemed to me to be significant.
First, the speakers never say what parts of evolutionary biology they actually accept. They do not say whether they accept that species that cannot interbreed can be descended from a common ancestor, or whether, for example, cattle, sheep and goats, or swans, ducks and geese are descended from a common ancestor.
Second, the speakers never say how they interpret the scientific evidence. They do not say whether they accept that the changes in living things shown in the fossil record are real, and, in particular, whether the age of the Earth obtained from radiometric dating is valid. They never explain the biogeographic evidence, for example the diversity of marsupial mammals in Australia and the absence of indigenous placental mammals. They never discuss the genetic similarities and differences between living things, although this is now the strongest evidence for the common ancestry of all living things.
In view of the fact that most of the opposition to evolution comes from fundamentalist Christians, it seems strange that Mr. Robinson never touched on the religious beliefs of the three speakers or on their interpretations of the Bible, and how these interpretations influence their understanding of science. How old do these speakers think the Earth is? Do they think that Adam and Eve were real people? Do they accept or reject flood geology? What would young-Earth-creationists, who are well represented on these forums, think of the speakers' answers to these questions?
