On the page that has the video, they have the "Annotated Table of Contents" mentioned by @Bill_II above:
And in it, @agauger describes ("lucky") chapter 13, which introduces chapters 14 to 16:
The Battle over Human Origins (Introduction to Chapters 14–16)
Ann K. Gauger
I had thought she was going to focus on the difficult area of the "first cell".
But heck no... I'm looking forward to hearing Dr. G's explanation for why
she chose the stance that we see described below.
"The origin of humanity—where we came from—is an issue
with many ramifications. It impacts our self-understanding in
multiple ways. Did we evolve from a common ancestor shared
with chimps, or might we have a unique origin?"
"Mainstream science says that it is incontrovertible that we are
the product of evolution. Is it therefore necessary to adapt our
understanding of Scripture, or might the science be overstated?"
"This short chapter, along with chapters 14–16, will argue that the
question of our origin is far from settled, and that there are scientific"
arguments to be made in favor of a unique origin for humanity. There
is no need to change traditional scriptural interpretations based on
[End of Annotation]
In just these few words above, she trashes the whole scope of
primate evolutionary processes as "inconclusive science" on the
matter of connecting the human primate (with all of its shared
primate glitches) as essentially without merit.
While on our forums she has thrown dust in the air over whether humans
took a million years or some other "Old Earth" span of time, the whole
time her position is that humans did not emerge through common descent,
and that there is no need to change our understanding of humans being
formed by God in miraculous acts of creation.
Dr. Gauger, would you dispute the idea that you appear to be the living
exemplar that someone can appear to accept the Earth as an "Old Earth",
and still dispute that humans are the result of two things:
1) God's evolutionary guidance, and
2) Common Descent from life that laid the floor plan for Primate design?
In maintaining that stance, you are showing that you are not any different
from all the other I.D. proponents, because you don't just have expectations
that there are key parts of Evolution that required God's miraculous involvement,
but that Evolutionary processes are so feeble, that God created humanity
separately and miraculously, rather than attempt the use of common descent
and natural selection to do so.