 Welcoming everybody from all walks of life. If you're looking for more juicy debates, don't forget to like or subscribe. Including tonight's debate, Evolution on Trial. With both of our interlocutors, Jen and Mark here to join us. And if you like what either of them say tonight, both of our guest links are in the description. With that, I'm going to hand it over to Mark for their 10 to 12 opening statement. Mark, the floor is yours. Thank you so much, Amy, and thank you, Jen, for getting to this debate and all the moderators and of course the audience for listening in and thank you for your time. I really do appreciate it. We're debating Evolution today and it's Evolution on Trial, so I'll be taking the position defending Evolution. I'll just share my screen. I've got a little bit of a presentation here. So I'll share that over to Amy. Thank you so much. So first off, just a bit about me. I'm a student at university. I study computer systems and networks. I love debating. I love talking with people. I love getting new ideas. So I'm especially thrilled to talk to Jen today. And hopefully we can have a discussion on where we disagree and where we see eye to eye with evolutionary theory. But I'll just go through this presentation first. So first off, we're going to define what is Evolution and just to get a baseline idea of what it is. So I've got a few definitions down there. And generally, I do like the bottom one. It's the most succinct. Evolution is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations. I forgot the R, thank you. Miss Belling, Taipei. But that's basically it. It's just the way that animals change over time. And that's all that evolution is. So is it a fact or a theory? Well, it's both. Evolution is a fact. So first off, let's define what a fact is. A fact is an indisputable observation of a phenomenon that occurs in nature. That's all a fact is as a scientific fact. And a theory. So in science theories and model to explain aspects of the world that is supported by laws and facts that has the backing of scientific consensus and has been regularly tested and failed to be falsified. So it's basically a theory in science is a model that is strong enough to stand up to the highest level of scrutiny. And that's basically what a theory is. So first off, let's look at evolution as a fact. It is a fact that that animals change characteristics or traits over time. That's just a fact. We can see this from wild animals turning into domestic animals. And there's a few examples there. Every breeder is aware that if they select for certain traits. They can change the makeup of those animals, dog breeders, horse breeders, plant breeders, all of them do this. And that's called artificial selection. Now, one of my favorite examples of this is Brassica, the Brassica industry or what originally used to be wild mustard. Now, wild mustard was selected for these traits for terminal buds, which made cabbage for the stem that make coal rubby. Coley flower, when we select for the flowers, clusters. All of these came from exactly the same plant, wild mustard. Now, this happens in nature as well. When, say, an animal will only eat the smaller leaves of something. You will then get a plant that naturally the ones that will survive are the ones with only larger leaves. And that's natural selection. So, Darwin, when he originally did it, did his theory of evolution. He did observe animals that have natural selection as a mechanism for changing their physiological makeup. One of the greatest examples for these were the finches, and they all used to eat different seeds and different food types on different islands. And that's a perfect example of evolution in the wild. It just favors whichever bird can get the most abundant supply of food in its environment. Evolution is a fact. Things do change over time. It is an indisputable observation that the traits and characteristics organisms do change in populations over time due to artificial and natural selection. Selection is not the only factor in evolution. Now the factors do affect the white gene drift and gene flow. Some of these terms like genetic drift is just sort of random things happening to the population. So there is an element of luck in it as well. So it can't all be natural selection. It just can't be. But generally, that's why evolution is a fact because we do see things change over time. Now evolutionary theory. Yeah, so it's the area that models the modern synthesis of evolution and genetics. So it models why we think this occurs. Charles Darwin, he originally penned the theory of evolution. It has been built upon since then. It is a lot stronger than it was in Darwin's day. He didn't know sort of the mechanism for evolutionary change. He knew that in some way the organism must gain traits from its parents. But at this point, DNA hadn't been discovered. So he didn't know what they were. But he absolutely predicted that a mechanism must be found for that to happen. And much later, we did find DNA. So these are the things that support evolutionary theory and I'll go through them very quickly. The fossil record comparative analogy distribution of species embryology, molecular biology and predictions. So the geological column allows us to see time periods, basically the layers that are built up over time. So when we're talking about fossils, we see from the oldest layers to the highest layers, more complex life forms. So we won't find an amphibian in the layer that's sort of, you know, two billion years old. We'll only find eukaryotic cells. So as these layers go down, we can see the larger and larger complexity of life built up. So any mammal found at one of these lower labels where we shouldn't find one, say, you know, sort of approximately 350 million years ago, would falsify evolution. But let me make it clear that has never happened in the vast millions and millions of fossils that we found never happened, not once. So also intermediate forms have been discovered in Darwin's time there were calls for intermediate and transitional forms. And we found so many by today that it's really difficult to identify where sort of amphibians and reptiles and mammals end and the next one begins. So we found that many species in between technically all species are transitional because all species are evolving. But really there's ones that sort of better than others comparative anatomy. So basically you can tell that things do have bones of similar structure. They're called homologies by scientists. So the best example of this is the lower jaws of mammals contain one bone and we can see in therapsids, which is a sort of mammal like reptile in between the two forms. We can see the bone traveling towards the ear canal where it is in mammals. So you can see that that bone started out in the lower jaw of reptiles with the threats that it moved up and then when the mammal it becomes part of the ear. So you can actually see that over time. Distribution of species. This is basically isolated environments have very distinct organisms in them. The Galopagos Islands is a perfect example of this when you isolate a population they become genetically distinct marsupials. The reason why marsupials are existent mostly in Australia and I think there's a couple in South South America is because there was a lack of placental mammals in Australia. So you get a genetically distinct form of animal where there are no placental mammals and that is a point in favor of evolution which sort of says without competitors. One type may prevail over the other types. Embryology. So this is the embryos of fish salamander to all of the embryos are amazingly similar looking the pharyngeal slits. We have them as humans. We have a tail as an embryo as humans and they're incredibly similar to every other embryo out there and those pharyngeal slits they turn into gills on fish. They actually turn into part of the jaw and ear canal with humans. So they use that they're not don't turn into gills. Of course, nobody has gills. Not to my knowledge anyway, but they definitely are used in human anatomy. Okay, so I'm lucky of biology. This is this is basically really strong evidence for evolution. So what we see here is when a species gets a gets a virus, it damages the proteins and sometimes that creates junk DNA in the in the in the chromosomes. So what this is is it's a marker of the loci or the distribution of viruses that have affected the ancestors or the precursors to humans. We can tell that all of these animals had the same viruses because they've got the same junk DNA as bones and other monkeys split split off. Well, they're all the old world monkeys but as they split off, you have different ones affect them and different ones affect the great apes for instance. So we can tell that we used to have a common ancestor with with these animals because of the junk DNA that we found. But you will not find some of the viruses that are in gorillas humans chimps and bonobos in the bones and marks monkeys. You won't find them. It's absolutely fascinating and it is compelling evidence. So this is a quote from Francis S. Collins, Dr. Francis S. Collins. As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our DNA instruction book at a level of detail that's never really possible before. It's also been now being possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things that descended from common ancestor is overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so as a Bible-believing Christian, but it is so. It does not serve faith well to deny that he is a very, very devout man and a very, very excellent scientist. So predictions, multiple novel predictions have been made about species that were discovered after the predictions. So they demonstrate the reliability. This is one made by Darwin, sort of 40 plus years before it was found. Thank you. He predicted a moth with a very long tongue and 40 years later it was found. This is archaeopteryx. It was predicted by Henry Woodward in 1875 when they found a fossil without head. When they did find the fossil, he predicted they would have teeth for the fossils and I think we have 12 of them. This bird dinosaur was very hard to tell which it is, had teeth. So the theory of evolution is how you describe the fact that the evolution organisms evolve over time. It is the most tested scientific theory in science, survived thousands of tests, 98% of scientists in the US except evolution as being the dominant scientific theory. I know that I am not an expert in this and that's just briefly a very sort of, you know, brief run down on it. I recommend Gutsick Gibbon, who we all adore as further information. Aeron Ra does excellent sort of statistics and how to categorize animals. And if you are a theist, I recommend biologos.org. It is an excellent people of faith conducting science if that's more what you're into. But thank you very much for your time and I'll hand it over to Jen for her introduction or back to Amy, perhaps. Thank you so very much, Mark, and we are now going to hand it back over to Jen for her 10 to 12 minute opening statement. Thank you, Amy and Mark and James for inviting me today. I really appreciate the chance to talk a little bit about this idea of evolution. So I was really interested in a lot of the things Mark said, I won't respond to them quite yet. I'll just give my presentation even though I'm super excited that he actually brought several very good points to the table. So thank you for paying the debate the respect that it deserves. I'm not disagreeing on the facts. I mean it would be silly to deny that certain animal corpses have been found underground in various places. So I describe it as genetic determinism and that's controversial. I guess there's some kind of discomfort with that. The fact that people can't acknowledge that it's effectively genetic determinism model is a bit concerning. Tell me how it's not genetic determinism, basically. I'm not not you, Mark, just anybody literally. That's the explanation I checked on Wikipedia. We all know that's never wrong. And that's what it's saying. It's genetic determinism and everything is originating in the genes and that there's your leap of faith. Not that stuff's found underground. Nobody's contesting that except I'm certainly not contesting it, but it's not about that. If something's going to rise to the level of science, it has to meet certain criteria. Now there's been some laxity and enforcing standards, but let's recall that what gives science prestige in the first place is the ability to make predictions. Not just any kind of predictions. Ideally, we'd want the model to abide by something which had the same essence as the Occam's razor principle. Your model is way too complicated, which seems to be maybe becoming the case with evolution. Because a lot of times stuff will totally not match with the predictions, so they'll have to come back with some rationalization. And that's considered science because the rationalization is then falsifiable, which means you're maybe able to test it, maybe able to disprove it. A lot of misunderstandings, a lot of inability for people to really defend these ideas on the level they would need to be defended for to actually rise to the level of science. So just to be clear that nobody's disagreeing on the facts if there is such a thing. The disagreement is on the level of what is actually driving this process. So we've got DNA based life. We don't have evidence of anything other than that. We have hypothetical speculation that maybe RNA, maybe was a precursor to DNA. The best evidence I could find supporting it was that scientists have managed to set up a chain of self replicating between two types of RNA. That's not a life form though. Two different things changing between each other. It doesn't rise to the level of life. What I would need to see would be RNA based life reproduce itself without any DNA based life. And scientists have tried to do this explicitly tried with simple life and it all migrated back. When it didn't die, it migrated back to DNA based life. So what should that tell you? There's some kind of harmonic resonance happening in the DNA state. I just can't imagine what it might be. I mean, it's a total mystery. We'll probably never know. What a shame. That aside, we know what DNA looks like great, but then we don't know why it looks like it does. And that's kind of what science is. What something looks like is just a description. Science is predictive. I would hope people would know the difference. So we have this DNA. We're really all we know about it is that we can take some stuff out and maybe it changes something. There's certain aspects that have been identified as causal in particular sub sub sub processes of the body. But there's no model actually saying why things happen in the order that they do based on axioms that are grounded in something defensible. So I'll just keep on going. I don't want to spend too much time on this. People say it's chemistry. Oh yeah, it's just chemistry. Well, look at chemistry. Can chemistry tell you why water's bent? Let's think about that for a minute. What does chemistry tell us? It says valence shell electron pair repulsion ought to happen. What's that? Whatever electrons are in the valence should be maximally repelled. That's predicting a linear water molecule, isn't it? Ask any scientist. They're not going to be able to push back on that. Well, it's the electrons. It's the valence electrons. That's not an explanation. That's a word. Sorry. I've had this conversation many times. But if they don't know how water, why water looks the way it does, they don't know how DNA does what it does. What Mark mentioned earlier with the Boracica is actually an example of de-evolution, which from what I can tell, most of the scientists won't even admit is a thing. Everything's got to be evolution. Clearly, there's a difference between what we're seeing in those stages of punctuated equilibrium, whether we agree as to what's mediating that or not. Difference between that and what you might call domain-specific adaptation, i.e., starting with your Boracica, and then saying, well, I want to really encourage it to have huge leaves or huge whatever. That's de-evolution because you can't start from the ones at the bottom and go to the one at the top. That's the whole point is there's less information than what there was at the top as you de-evolve to these hyper-specific states. And that's one of the canonical conjugations of an actual scientific interpretation of this stuff, is that you'll have more domain-specific adaptation as you de-evolve from the original state. So you get blue eyes. You can see very clearly astrations in Europe that could indicate none other than a geographic cause to the color of eyes. So that's basically saying losing the potential to have brown eyes, losing genetic information, gaining adaptation to the environment, because somehow, for whatever reason that I'm not going to go into right now, blue eyes worked out increasingly well in the north. So again, that's not telling us what's happening with macroevolution. That's the real crux of the problem here is what's the mechanism of macroevolution. The fact that de-evolution is a thing doesn't tell us anything about that. Then we have to contend with punctuated equilibrium. Huge problem. The entire genetic record looks like quantum state transitions, but there's an insistence on this nearly linear model. The only quantum effects and modern understanding of genetics is the trivial field, which is like, well, everything's quantum. It's like great assertion that tells us absolutely nothing. I don't want to alarm as an intelligent design person because I feel like that's just being unnecessarily inflammatory. And Amy, how much time do I have left? Sorry. So we are at the seven-minute mark, so it's just at five minutes now. Thank you so much. Okay, no one's disagreeing, I don't think, on the facts in this particular exchange. And I don't want it to get to whatever, and I don't think it will. But we've got to sort of just take a step back and ask ourselves, what are the facts here? The facts are, we have a bunch of cataloged species. We have a model which is hypothetical speculation, which in many cases makes predictions that are not according with reality, at which point the excuses come out, right? So notice that with, I hate to say with what Mark was saying, but it's like, there was like a lot of, you know, it's a fact. And he's very devout and all these like, oh, it's definitely, everything's definitely okay using three definitions of evolution, but really only committing to the most lax definitions. So I called this the Socratic two-step. It's like, if you have two different definitions and you're defending the easiest one to defend, but then you're leading with the one that you're not defending, that's, I don't think you're doing it intentionally, but that's a dishonest way of debating. You should always defend the strongest form of your position, not lead with a weak form that's very ambiguous that nobody could really disagree with. Well, yeah, things are adapted to their environment, sure, but that doesn't then mean that it's happening because of these genetic mutations, which doesn't even make any sense. There's so many different presuppositions to that model that I've lost counts more than the Christians. The best model I've seen was on the way to being more scientific because it's actually saying, well, here's some sort of pump-esque thing where we can say that, like, whatever the digestive thing was happening, external to life, pretty much here, so it makes sense that maybe there could have been some encapsulation with fats that might have led to some sort of cell type thing. It still doesn't really have a model in the sense that it's saying, well, there's light field here, and this is, you know, the electrical, blah, blah, blah, that there would actually be some fundamental way to build up what it would actually end up looking like. Okay, I agree with you on all the stuff that's logical. It's really just the metaphysical framing of this question, and I think we should really look at just rejecting this model altogether because I do think it obfuscates a genuine understanding. And I'd say just consider, is it possible that evolution and intelligent design are not mutually incompatible concepts? I've got some challenge questions here. I didn't really want to go too much into that because Duvedal always says I shouldn't be teaching on the debates, but it's just so appealing. So I didn't actually want to throw those out there, and I will come back to them later if we don't talk about them quite yet. I wanted to also really quickly mention that we really shouldn't be deferring to authority on these debates if we don't accept the same source of authority. We should be trying to make the argument stand on its own merits through logic, not this guy said so and he's authority for these reasons, like they don't accept the same authority can't appeal to authority. Just want to mention that real quick. And yeah, that's about it. I guess I'll see the rest of my time because I'm just really excited to talk to Mark. Thanks again and nice to see all my friends in the chat. Thank you so very much, Jen. And with that, we are going to head into 60 minutes of open dialogue. Ladies and gentlemen, the floor is all yours. Thank you so much, Amy. Wow, Jen, that's awesome. And I look forward to talking to you too. I'm glad that we agree on the fact. So, and you sort of mentioned that later on, sort of that, you know, my definition was the most lax, but it wasn't the definition of the theory of evolution. The definition was just on evolution as in animals changing over the organisms, all organisms changing over time. Because that is the basic definition. I'm certainly not saying that's the definition of the theory of evolution. So I think I think we've got to sort of put one aside and say, okay, you obviously agree with the fact of evolution, right? Yeah, I agree that animals, etc., are adapted to their environment. Well, they adapt over time to the environment. Right, but they physiologically change over time, like through successive generations. Right, I'm just making sure we're on the same page here. So your problem is more with the idea that it is sort of natural selection. And remember your similar embryos picture. Oh, yeah, sure. And that reminds me of this notion of phylogeny, recapitulate ontology, which a lot of ways or goes over my head, but like, what does that diagram tell you? Because to me, it says that there's some sort of monadic pure form dictating the evolution of every single embryo. Well, that's possible, I guess, but I think I think it's important to realize that it's not just the embryos that we have here. It's a lot of different evidences from a lot of different sources, sort of the fossil record, the, you know, the junk DNA from viruses and all of them put together, they all point at the same answer. Which is, which is what? Well, the natural selection, so we have sort of mutations that occur randomly or, you know, at least arbitrarily that occur, whichever, you know, organism is best suited for an environment will generally tend to survive to create the mutations that are of benefit will be passed along to the offspring, and then that will become reinforced because they will be the ones to survive. I guess it's like if they're all random mutations if they're all random mutations shouldn't shouldn't there not be this convergence between the appearance of all the different teeny tiny little. So that's called parallel evolution where you basically have that that's not an actual model that's a that's like a label you understand that I just think it's parallel evolution it's like that does not tell me literally anything. Yeah, yeah, that's okay. Well, I'll go. It's not okay. I'm not okay. Yeah, that's okay. I'll just go on to explain it. So basically what you have is that multiple organisms will evolve certain features that are advantageous because they live or have similar needs. So for instance, if you consider birds bats and say it dragon flies right they all evolve wings. They're not the same type of wings but they all evolve the same structures because all animals. All animals you're saying all all animals of all the same thing through random genetic mutation or all animals have the same structure of fetus because of a monadic pure form. The latter appears to be quite a bit more intuitively self evident because it's like oh they all are just minor deviations from one single unitary hole in different directions based on whatever space temporal niche they happen to hone in on. Let's look at that space temporal niche so if it's advantageous to have wings in that space temporal niche that you call it. It's not about wings it's about perception of time right so the thing you want to look at is the approximately same number of heartbeats per lifetime across all animals it's not the exact same but the number of heartbeats for all animals per lifetime does converge to a fairly small interval space saying that like there's a there's a preservation of space time. Well I feel that sort of lacks relevance to what we're discussing that's an important thing because it's a pattern between animals patterns between animals help us to abstract models to predict how they arise. So it's the patterns recognizing patterns for most important things and making scientific models don't you think. But evolution happens to animals or organisms that don't have heartbeats like plants. So how does that work. Well they're in a different space temporal array. I have a diagram for that. I've attempted to trace out to the primary axes of the space temporal way you can see in a symmetric axes of plants. Like there's one axis of symmetry in humans whereas plants they're sort of they can sort of more twirl out from the center so they're a bit more like a fractalization. So their space temporal niche is orthogonal to the animals in that sense. The animals are all in the same one because they all have a heart. It sounds a monad pure form. It sounds very very complicated. Yours sounds complicated to me right. Like because mine is hard when you start to assimilate the notion of monad type thinking. But yours is extremely difficult because you have to memorize all these disparate notions which are offering contradictory and which actually don't accord with reality. Now whether mine accords with reality or not at least doesn't contradict reality. Like your model and this monad model can they both be true. I'm not saying it's your model or whatever like you created it but can they both be true. And I would say no because evolution by mutation implies randomness and we cannot establish that randomness exists in this universe. Well I don't know what a moanic sort of ideal form is because if you're saying that that was a form that they all branched off from the start then presumably your moadic form would be a single cell bacteria or something. It's unobservable now. I don't know what it is so I can't say whether it's contradictory or not because I have no idea what it is. It's an idea. Yeah the idea it would definitely contradict it because the monad is ordered versus evolution which is based on like randomness which is the opposite of order in some sense. How does an idea produce anything. Because it works like a machine of axioms like how do you assert things as true well I have whatever doesn't contradict your axioms. I have plenty of ideas I don't work like machines they're just sort of you don't see it but I do humans are machines you don't see it. Yeah but humans aren't ideas they're concrete things they're not ideas. Yeah but ideas have effect of on the concrete. And if you don't acknowledge that they do you're going to have hard time ordering your thinking because the ideas recurs into the concrete on an ongoing basis. I mean there's a lot of abstract things that have an effect on. I'm talking about a real effect. Like the sphere is literally the thing that controls everything. Everything is something that started as a sphere and got stitched into itself a certain number of times including you and I. That's what my diagram is into itself. Yeah like threading or binding or whatever I mean I don't want to go into the whole model of it and I can talk about this I'll do an after show. And I'll describe it all there I don't want to get too far off into it but I do think the ideas are incompatible and maybe the axiomatic divergence is that the model you're defending requires there to exist randomness. Can you stop like what's your best evidence that randomness exists in this universe. Well mutations. They can be called random but they're not 100% random there are. Oh this is excuses now so are you kidding my point. No, no, no. There's more chances for some parts of the cell to be affected more chances for others to be affected so are you sort of taking that position that mutations do not happen is that. Oh yeah they definitely happen. Devolution. Yeah. Devolution would be macro evolution. So what when you're looking at those diagrams that fit the profile of punctuated equilibrium. Do you know what I'm referring to. Well punctuated equilibrium. The tree. Yeah, yeah, but that's only one. One model of how it works so the theory that that is that's what the data chords with. Well that's contested in a evolution is actually sort of phyletic gradualism and sort of quantum evolution and we don't observe theory. There's a totally different totally different models that show the rate at which species are stable and then the rate at which they evolve and the punctuated equilibrium is only one of them and it is. It is something that evolutionary biologists do argue about which one is actually true. So, doesn't it only become science when they agree on a model. Right. Yeah but but sort of punctuated equilibrium theory is not is not agreed on while evolutionary theory is they all agree that evolution evolution happens and evolutionary theory is correct. They just disagree on some of the specifics of it. And that's the difference. Well punctuated equilibrium, like the record itself appears to line up more or less with punctuated equilibrium. There's no intermediary species. Well, whether that's like that's the thing that punctuated equilibrium doesn't proffer a model it's a description. It's saying yes, that's the pattern that it fits and I would assert that is the pattern that it fits and the question just becomes well why. Does it change. And there's a lot of assumptions made in there because you're basically positing it's due to gradual mutations, which build up over time it's like they're building up you have. Can you demonstrate how these mutations are building up over time that suddenly. What exactly like. Yeah, we can. DNA is extremely malleable though. It's interesting the way you said there was no duplication or deletion of genes there was only substitution right and that's what your presentation said. The weird thing is, is that we know that that insertion of genes and duplication of genes and deletion of genes does happen when the strand coils. That causes on the new one a deletion because the proteins can't mesh with their their opposite right so basically if it becomes a loop. Oh I get the idea like I totally get what you're saying which is saying like. If I break my TV. That doesn't do anything to the television broadcaster. The metaphor here it doesn't do the TV in this metaphor that your consciousness is the broadcast. And God is the broadcaster I suppose but anyway. Sometimes if we alter the body then there's going to be a change. Obviously yes if I smash my TV it's not going to broadcast the show anymore but that doesn't mean that the show itself has stopped broadcasting in general. Right I hope I get what you're getting at but sometimes the. The mutations don't do anything to the organism they do absolutely nothing it's part of junk DNA that we don't. Would you tell you the mutations are not what's driving the phylogenic changes sometimes they do have a big impact on on. Things that happen that happen. For instance there was a experiment where they for 30 years a guy ran E coal I in a that and there was observed a mutation where the E coal I in one that that were only had access to citric acid. Stop eating carbohydrates and switch to citric acid due to a mutation in their DNA. So we observe this. That's the evolution right that's what I agree with the evolution. I mean specific adaptation okay so you think of there being like a certain amount of potential in life. Well okay well I'll explain and then it goes into a particular domain and it loses some of that potential in order to change what it looks like to match where it is more like the blue eyes with the Europeans right. You can't get brown eyes back from blue eyes. It's just not possible. Well that's because of the way that the coloring works but that there's no such thing as the evolution it doesn't exist there's just evolution. Oh my gosh. The macro the thing driving macro evolution and the thing driving the domain specific adaptation. How can that possibly be the same mechanism if they have a completely different profile one happens extremely slowly one is just like boom. Okay so macro evolution and micro evolution are exactly the same process. They are exactly like how can you possibly establish that it's like it's baffling that you can just assert this because they're so different. What do you mean they're so different there's just just a profile completely differently. You know when when speciation happens when it's outside the species then they call it a macro evolution but it's no different process at all. You're asserting that with no evidence Mark. Well I mean, I guess I can find a citation that they are the same. What is the citation going to change I'm not going to agree because I'm going to say my model predicts this better your model doesn't predict anything. I don't agree because no matter how much backtracking and editing of random explanations it doesn't change the fact that there's no way to actually predict anything with certain what has your model predicted. Okay have a look here so here's how you here's how predictions work you start with a simple model so you have two light forms. So there's fear forms. A bit of a tricky thing with the monad and the sphere forms in the sense that the perfect sphere doesn't actually exist within the domain of that which is observable, because everything tends to a perfect sphere but we have something called the observer effect which every time there's an interaction there's an observation, which also has a non zero effect on the system. And then the Copenhagen interpretation where there must be a reduction to one of the eigen states for there to be an interaction with a measurement device. So basically the same sort of wraps up on a nice both the observer effect so we have spheres. When you observe it's a sphere form, not a literal sphere but a sphere form which is existing in the monad then when you go to observe it, it goes from the perfect sphere down to something that is adjacent to the perfect sphere. How adjacent depends on the energetic profile of the thing which is making the observation right. So I'm a little confused what is it predicting. I'm about to show you what it's predicting so we've got the simple model which is we think of this as like what was, what was the scene when life started right so we've got basically a bound heat to positive situation that has some capacity to naturally define what's coming into it to keep us are in balance with you think about it there's really not that much to DNA because there are four base pairs but they're locked in tandem with like one. I don't, I don't have a memorized but they always locked the same one so anyway. What is your basic model for what would happen just in a totally randomized situation, a couple of light balls or sphere forms would be bumping around and what these lines are just in the base pairs. And the idea is that the base pairs arose from fundamental micro states of matter basically energy when more and more energy goes into a system it can suffuse more micro states. So when there's very little energy there's only one micro state that's the zero point energy then as you go up there's more and there's like a multiplicity each time. Again, MONAT, there's one fundamental thing and then it has a secondary node and a tertiary node and on and on and on but it all has to go from the, what do you call it, a priori assumptions. Go ahead, yeah, I still haven't, I still haven't made, I haven't made it yet I'm trying to give you a context to understand why it's a prediction. Well, maybe we can what's necessary. Shave it down. It's just something that you predict and how you know that prediction came true. Well, I've given this explanation many times and a lot of times people miss the point. So I'm trying to avoid that as time. So we have very simple forms set up in what you think of just like as an aqueous solution. And what's the natural tendency of matter? This is your simple model. Yeah, definitely, definitely. There is what you call a steep learning curve. Yes, but you have to get used to monadic thinking. But once you can do it, you can. This doesn't sound simple. But it's like, whatever. This does not sound simple. Paradisciplinarity. It sounds insanely complicated. A bunch of balls on sticks. That's complicated, Mark. Well, no, it's more the narrative around those balls on sticks. The narrative is to clarify. I got to fill up an hour here. I try to give the audience what they came for. One of us would be in tears. So they're already hugely disappointed. But let me just show you how this works. So we have to set it up in what's called the least energy position. Right. So maximally repelled. So you've got. This will line up, but it won't start to come back to its origin point because matter has a natural self repulsion. So it'll sort of dangle in the halfway point that will self assemble. And then these will be on opposite sides spontaneously because again, this matters self repulsion. And then you just have a simple. Vibration of light, which is a natural thing. Everything vibrates. You can establish this with matter waves. And what do we see here to DNA shape? You, your model can't do that. Yeah. It's a bit more of a preamble, but then you get the actual shape. It's like this is why it looks like this is being stitched together by a light field. Very simple. Okay. So when you say, it comes from, and then on top of that you have. Many fields, which exists all simultaneously. So your prediction is that the double helix shape of DNA. Is that what you're saying? I would say that's pretty good. Isn't it? I mean, that's kind of a biogenesis, isn't it? Well, the problem is that a prediction is made. Oh, no, no, no, don't do this, Mark. Are you an expert on what a prediction is, Mark? Well, no, but the, the pre part means before it's pretty, you know, standard stuff. So to make a prediction, you know, standard stuff. So to make a prediction, I would have to say. It's not cool at all. It's not cool to know how it forms. It's because it's not a prediction. Well, no, because it's a post hoc explanation. You're coming in afterwards and saying, Hey, this is the reason why it happened. And that's fine. Don't get me wrong. I don't have any problem with you doing that, but it's not a prediction. It's predicting the shape based on simpler shapes. No, no. Okay. You don't like predicting. How about deriving? I derive the shape in a, sure. So how is deriving different from predicting that? Well, because you said your model makes predictions that my, my model, my model can't make. So I'm wondering what these predictions are. Like for instance, Darwin predicted. Right. That you would find a moth with a 30 centimeter probiscous because there was an awkward with a 30 centimeter nectar well, right? So he predicted that it was found much, much later, this moth was found after he was dead, but he made the analysis instead of deriving it from seeing the moth and the flower, he made it in advance a prediction. So that's more impressive than the fact that I can show you how DNA is stitched out from light. What if I can, what if I can derive why the heart has four chambers? That's less impressive than the fact that some Yahoo said something maybe was going to be something else in the future because reasons there's actually no justification that doesn't link up to mutation being the mechanism for evolution. Like how it shows through how that works exactly. Well, it shows that your model has the power to predict things in reality without you knowing those facts ahead of time. But how important is that? Oh, it's very important. I mean, all scientific models can make predictions over things. So if you've got a model for, say the theory of gravity or physics, you can predict where, you know, a catapult will land all. It's incredibly important. But if I'm right on the theory, if it doesn't predict anything that has already been observed, it's wrong because it didn't make a novel prediction. No, no, that's not what I said. That's not what I said, Jen. It's not necessarily wrong. No, no, no. It's not necessarily wrong, but you're saying how can a prediction be better than a derived statement about the origin of something. I'm just explaining how that's all. Then you're saying that like it just, it baffles my mind because, you know, I don't know what the odds is, but to me the DNA shape is pretty awesome. The fact that somebody predicted that something, that's what I've got here is more significant than the fact that somebody maybe speculated, like for every correct speculation about some random inference between species that have been observed, there's a million wrong ones, right? I debated somebody not that long ago, Jackson Wheat about evolution, and he cited some extremely obscure prediction about some midway, some species that was going to be midway between two previously observed species. Sure. That's not really a prediction in the sense that it doesn't actually tell us, it doesn't have any way to falsify the interpretation that the mutations are the actual source of the changes. You have an unfalsifiable model because you have no way of actually going in and saying, oh, it's actually not the genetic mutations that are the cause of the change to the way. Well, we've observed mutations. Tell me how it's falsifiable. How could you possibly falsify? But you can't because it's an axiomatic assumption of the model. What do you mean? It's an assumption of the model that you're using that mutations are the mechanism by which evolution happens. Well, so why does all of the animals that sort of change have the same mutations in their DNA? Like, for instance, if you have, I think my model had an oracle, right? And then we have cows today. Mark, if they're all the same, doesn't that mean they're not random? Well, they're not all the same. That's why we get different animals branching out. You just said they're the same mutation. No, no, no. If I have a breed of cow, right? Just say I'm a cow breeder and I breed two separate species of cows, right? One with small horns and one with big udders. Say that. Okay. Okay. Why do the mutations appear in the genome? Because of de-evolution. Match. I don't know what de-evolution is. Exactly. What's matching? Well, the genetic sequences, right? Well, you know where you can sequence genomes, right? Didn't you? Yeah, I do know that. But didn't you just say they were different cows? And now they have the same genetic sequence? Is that it? Well, not identical, but you'll see the same mutations in them. Right? Okay. So I don't understand where mutations aren't responsible. Mutations are the way that de-evolution happens. That's not evolution though, right? So what you're calling evolution, which is these state transitions in the punctuated equilibrium type stuff? Well, I'm not necessarily. That's not driven by mutation. Yes. Mutation is what drives the de-evolution because it's not what drives it. It's part of the process of it because something has to change the information content in the genes to be canonically conjugate to the fact that the species has adapted to its environment. Okay. So what are you calling that? That's de-evolution. That's not telling us how do we get all this genetic information in the first place that we could later de-evolve into? That's the question we have to answer. And what I'm saying is that's quantum state transition. So it goes from less information to more spontaneously, like a light bulb turning on basically. And then after that it can de-evolve. And the reason it de-evolves is because it's adapting to a specific environment. And there will be patients associated with those de-evolutions. So I'm not disagreeing with that. Okay. Well, I've got to address this because evolution doesn't sort of make any, it doesn't cover where the, you know, organisms came from. It just explains the genetic diversity. That's the problem is that if you don't have an actual, because there's no model for how it started, there's no way to check if the model is right. You're assuming your model's right because you need a model to check if it's right. There's no model. You can't check if it's right. Like with gravity. We can check if it's right. It explains the genetic diversity of organisms is what it's supposed to do. And that's all that it covers. We should be predicting the genetic diversity, don't you think? Well, yeah. Scientists have made predictions like the one about the moth that I've just told you about. That's not a prediction of the diversity itself. It is a prediction of a particular microstate within the diversity. That's like saying I observed 25 degrees Celsius here and 35 degrees Celsius here. So I think I'm probably going to get, you know, 30 here. That's what that's saying. That's not saying what temperature is in the, in the broader sense. That's the question a scientist seeks to answer. And when they go to do it, they prefer, they prefer models, which can be evaluated by other people and push back on it. They have erroneous assumptions. And unfortunately with this model, like people are not even owning, but it doesn't mean that we can use it to make certain predictions about what happens. And there's more than just these couple of predictions that I've put in there, like about Archaeopteryx having teeth. They predicted a, a common ancestor for frog salamanders. And, you know, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, as long as we, as long as the sign language is classic humans, right? There were some implications of that afro volt, there were some implications for frog Salamanders and other amphibians. I forget the third type of amphibian. There's been a lot of predictions using this model that have been made. But. But it's very strange to hear that, that sort of mutation and then adapting to that. You called the evolution, which I think I would just call that evolution. system evolves, the sum has to be greater than the parts. That's weird, because what you described was evolution, but evolution heads towards more complexity, generally, generally. Well, entropy always increases. That's tautological. That doesn't actually- Entropy always increases. Well, over- The fact that entropy always increases. Always system, generally. It always increases, just a law. Well, not, not. The tough thing is actually defining entropy in a way that actually corresponds to reality. Like we'll- I feel like we're off topic. Well, not really. I mean, this stuff has to do essentially with Boltzmann type ideas. Okay, well, I mean, but entropy can decrease in an area with energy, right? Exactly. That's what's happening on earth. Or, hey, entropy's still increasing, but order's increasing also. So entropy and order are actually not, they're not opposite concepts. Order is always there. Entropy is always increasing. Entropy means microstate saturation. It's a particular way to measure microstate saturation. It has to do with the one and all. If you can describe a system using particular parameters, fully transcend its information quotient, then you can get a quantity which will be not the same, but inter-relationally accurate called entropy. Okay, so this entropy between the systems and maintain meaning is what I'm trying to say. This Moad stage that you have, or Moad thing. Monad. That is Monad thing. That is the perfect organism or whatever it is to you. This is like the cookie cutter animal. How do we know that actually exists and what evidence- We don't have to. It's a model, Mark. We don't have to guarantee that it exists. It's a model. It makes the prediction. So we go with the model even if, who gives any whatever's if it's not real and whatever the heck that even means, right? Because our ability to know stuff is sort of predicated on our subjectivity. Yeah, I kind of haven't heard any predictions, like predictions, not sort of- It's not just about predicting things. It's about understanding the mechanism of how the things we already know what they are. Well, you keep saying it makes predictions. We want to understand how they work more deeply. Well, a prediction is just, you set up the state equations for a system and you let them run. And those are predictions because they're going to tell you without actually engaging the system, what the system will look like in the future. What predictions is it made? Okay. Remember the DNA shape, Mark? But that wasn't a prediction. That's explaining the DNA shape. Not an, okay. Yours is the explanation. Mine's the prediction. So you're starting with the assumption of spheres and you're ending with a double helix. What's more complicated? A double helix or a sphere, informationally? Which is more complex. Obviously the double helix is more complex informationally than a sphere. But I've been able to build up a double helix with only spheres. Informationally, there's very, very little information in my model. Yeah. And if you made that declaration before we knew that the double helix was indeed a double helix, it would be a prediction. That would be a bit beyond the pale to be that good. Who's that good? I mean, this is still pretty good. He did not, he didn't, you do understand that his prediction doesn't actually speak to the truth or falsity of his metaphysical assumptions, right? Because evolution by mutation predicts non-contrary equilibrium. It is a prediction that he made. It is a prediction, at least a prediction, whereas unfortunately you don't seem to have any. But that's okay. You seem to be able to somehow invert time to say, hey, because I derived this, it's a prediction. And I don't think that's right. Okay, all right. So I've covered that evolution isn't a biogenesis. It doesn't, I think I so. Mutations that you say leave to the evolution How do you explain the insertion of genes into the genome from the loop example that I gave you, copying errors? Yeah, you have to really show me this precise example. If you want me to go over a specific example, you don't need to show it to me before the actual debate because everything that we observe is still going to be consistent with the manner in which I'm framing it. It's just that I'm giving you the prime mover with regards to consciousness itself. You're saying that the prime mover to consciousness doesn't matter. You're saying we can get all the information we need out of the genetics. I'm saying, no. No, I'm not. No, I'm not. I'm just saying that the evolution doesn't cover a prime. It makes no sort of, it makes no statement on any prime mover at all. Yeah, so do you understand how that's a bit of a problem because now you've got people stepping in with religion and an uncompelling rival theory in science. This theory is not compelling. Whether it seems reasonable that it's made a culture, well, I think it's true things are compelling. That's how you know it's not true is that it isn't compelling, right? Things can't really be true because truth is defined to some extent through us and true is what we can remember. And untrue stuff, we can't remember that long term. Why can't true things be compelling? They are. True things are compelling. That's what I'm saying. Your model is uncompelling. Therefore, evidence it's not true. My model is compelling. Evidence it's more true because we don't really have access to like objective truth type deal. But true things can be uncompelling as well. It's true that I'm holding it. They can be horrifying, but they're still compelling. They're so compelling that they're horrifying. So they become esoteric because people are like, ah, don't remind me that I don't exist in the sense that I think that I exist, I'm so. So, okay, this is really weird because I've heard that true things are compelling but true things can also be so uncompelling that they're horrifying and become compelling again. Yeah, resonance. Well, horror is a type of being compelled, right? You're compelled. Ah, it's like a type of being compelled. I would say repelled maybe. I don't know about compelling. Is repelling type of compelling is the question. That's a metaphysical question. I don't know. I have no idea. No idea. Now you're into psychology, but that's logical also because you're in the universe. You are a machine in the universe, which means you're not at the same energy level of the universe. You're at a different level of energy, but you're still ensconced in the same physical laws. Whatever makes you up will be consistent with the fundamental laws. It's just a higher vibrational harmonic than the fundamental note, which is like- Well, I think that evolution applies to psychology as well. And when you're talking about horror or fear, it's, you know, scientists do say that it's a fight or flight reflex. It's the adaption, if you wanna call it that. That's a description, not scientific. It's fine. It's a semi-accurate description. Like I think there's a third one, which is maybe like the pixel paralysis. Yeah, flight freeze. That is not a model. That's a description. To get to be a model, we have to go a step further and say, well, these things will happen when this happens, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, based on these simpler parameters. Now I have that. I have a model like that. I don't wanna get into it right now, but it is possible to do that because there is a natural impulse that we all share as conscious subjective agents. Very extensive. Well, I mean, I'm just pointing out that you're referencing psychology and psychologists believe that it is an evolutionary adaptation for us to fight, flight or freeze. That's what they do say. You're aware that's what psychologists actually say. And are you aware that that's not a scientific assertion? It's a description. Well, a scientific assertion would be saying, this happens because of this simpler thing that drives it. You're saying, well, there's a tripartite response to stimulus or to dangerous stimulus and it's specific to these three criteria. Description, not a prediction. Yeah, and that's backed up by what we see in animals and sort of the physiology of adrenaline being pumped and things flowing through your system and you have a reaction to it. They didn't predict that. They knew those things. They observed those things a bunch of times and then they said, well, it fits this tripartite model where all the responses were saying it was a prediction. That's not science, right? Because that's just a description of what that's a cataloging and saying, well, it made sense to put it into these three broad strokes categories. That doesn't tell you about why it's happening. I mean, clearly there's a component where genetics are controlling it, but don't you think that we're more so built on principle of symmetry? We literally all have these axes of symmetry. What do you think is causing that organizational, but they're exactly, because that's monad again, right? Like the perfect symmetry, the perfect state is not observable. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this monadic idea? Quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics literally sort of backed into the same conclusion. Just think of the sphere. Can you observe a perfect sphere? No. There's a lot of things I can think of that I can't observe. Well, just stick to the sphere. Why can't you observe a perfect sphere? I can think of a magic unicorn. It doesn't make a magic unicorn. That is a completely irrelevant and non sequitur metaphor. I'm asking you if you can observe. Well, it's an analogy. It's not really a metaphor. There's essentially no difference there, is there? So, right? Like, let's just stick to the point. Can you observe a perfect sphere? And if not, why? Well, it's because a perfect sphere can't exist. It does exist. It does exist. It's just that when you observe it, you destroy it everywhere. Everything is fundamentally a perfect sphere. That's the idea of the monad. It's just that when you observe it, it collapses into an eigenstate because observation is state reduction. That's the definition. So if you can't observe it, how do you know it's a perfect sphere? Inference based on a big amount of observations inferring back what must the pure form have been. The same way we look at the catalog of the fetuses and say, well, the pure form must represent the sort of back traced model. The thing that we can deform continuously to get each of these different templates. And there should exist such a form. It's probably gonna come out of topology type answer. Why should there? Sorry? You said there should exist such a form. Why should there? Because that's the model that is the accurate one. The metaphysics that is accurate. Yeah, so I'm sort of, all I hear is assertions. I don't actually hear any evidence of this being true. So when you say that your evidence is inference, that's not really evidence. Just saying inference isn't evidence. Yeah, it's called induction. It's called induction. It's like if I make a bunch of observations and I never get a deviation from anything other than a sphere as a pure form, at some point I'm just like, I'm gonna jump to that conclusion. I'm gonna go the inductive step because there's absolutely no evidence to the contrary and a ton of evidence that's backing me up. So perfect spheres can exist. In fact, entropy dictates that they must exist because they're the minimum energy shape and state. A sphere minimizes torque about the center. We should expect nothing but spheres. Unless there's some sort of an action potential bearing down a system, right? That's the whole idea. But a perfect sphere, if we want to go and try to empirically observe one, try to isolate one, measure one, whatever, we couldn't do it because even though they exist everywhere, by virtue of measuring them, we're changing them somehow. So if you're changing something by measuring it, you're not gonna get the thing it was originally or anymore, are you? Even if every single thing was a sphere, you're never gonna observe one because the fact of observing it is deviating it from a sphere. That doesn't mean spheres don't exist. And you can't possibly know that it exists. So you're gonna get a paradox here. That's what a non-monadic thinker would think, right? So by not believing in the monad, you're basically making it impossible to learn anything because you're asserting for no reason that this can't be right. It's like, well, obviously it has to be right. I had to hominem, I'm afraid, which is sort of pointing out that I don't. It's a criticism of the style of thinking. I'm not trying to attack you. I'm saying the way you're thinking is not very organized. Well, as an example, I could just say, well, that's exactly what a monadic thinker would think, right? I could just do the same. You don't understand how I'm thinking because if you understood it, you'd agree with me because it's much easier- You don't understand how I'm thinking either. Yes, I do. I'm aware of how you're thinking and- Really? What number am I thinking of? Not what you're thinking, Mark. How you're thinking. And I know how you're thinking. I think you're thinking monadically. No, you don't. Because if you- Yeah, you are thinking monadically. I know it. Ah, yeah, I got you. I got you. But you don't know what that means, right? You don't know what it means. I'm getting more and more information about it as we speak. I've had a lot of these conversations. Did you follow what I said about the perfect sphere, though, that it's unobservable even though it's everywhere? It can't be observed by virtue of what it means to observe something. That's what the moment is. I understand what you're saying. I do not believe you haven't. I don't see the evidence that that's true. It's beyond true. It's a metaphysical aesthetic. What does beyond true mean? Metaphysical things are beyond true. Things are either true or not true. Beyond truth is always relative to axioms. Well, how do you prove something true? How do you prove something false? You have to go back to that level of like, something's false if it leads to a contradiction with an axiom. So you need at least an axiom to prove something false. Yeah, I don't think there's any such thing as beyond true. I think things are either true or they're not true. Metaphysics is beyond true, yes. It defines- If something defines what it means for something to be true, it's beyond truth. It doesn't mean it's superior to truth. It means that it grounds truth. Like for something to be true, what's true? Like how can you determine that exactly? That which accords with reality, right? But then how do you know what's happening in reality if you're bounded by your own mind? You have to have some, the only way out of a heart solace system is an appeal to authority. It's gotta be the right authority. Well, I'm happy to discuss heart solace, but I don't think it's the topic for this debate. It should be a topic in every debate because how a person overcomes heart solipsism is their primary pramana effectively. It's, heart solipsism is unfalsifiably, you cannot get out of it, meaning you have to appeal to some type of authority to say, well, in spite of heart solipsism, I'm going to nevertheless appeal to authority X, Y, Z. But it does sound like another fun modern day debate. Yeah, absolutely. But yes, we're having fun. We'll have about 20 more minutes before we go into the Q and A section so you can get your burning desire question in, but we are talking evolution going back and forth. We have Mark and Jen with us. Hand it right back to you guys. I do think you're super brave, Mark, for taking this debate. I've got to say like, everybody should give a big round of applause to Mark because I guarantee you, James had to go through a lot of people before finally being like, ah. I always enjoy your company, Jen, always. It's always an awesome time and I hope people are following along because I may not be just letting you guys know. Yeah, something like that. Yeah, so I think we're covering most things. So just to recap where we're at, I think that we're on that sort of evolutionary fact or the fact that things change over time. You agree with that? You agree that mutation causes changes to organisms, but you would rather call that de-evolution because you believe that there is a super organism at the start of all of this with all of the information and that things are progressing away from that. Would that be correct to say? Almost, but when you have macro evolution, that is a quantum state transition. So there's no change for a long time in a quantum state transition because it has to build up energy and there's no real external evidence for that. It's just, it's an internal thing. It's photonic saturation. You've got to remember just like fundamentally in physics, photons aren't subject to quantum state exclusion. Well, fermions are. So there is a restriction to the states they can occupy and there's both massive, which are fermions and non-massive, which are photons in biology. So what's happening is like a bath, think of it like a bathtub. Sorry, go ahead. How do you know that the macro evolution or the change in speciation is a quantum state transition? How do you know that? Have you done any experiments or anything to show me that that's true? What kind of experiment would show that that's true? Wouldn't it be a matter of researching all the evidence and seeing what explanation according to the evidence? It's funny that you mentioned photonics because I know that X-ray and gamma rays can cause mutation as well because they damage the proteins and therefore it can't line up with its matching protein. That's white noise. They call it like a broad spectrum, sort of just generalized. That would be the maximally disordered light. Life is ordered. How do we know it's ordered light? Because the ordering principle, i.e. the fact we all have these approximate axes of symmetry. The fact we have a centralized sense of self-identity. I mean, that's telling us something about the general rules governing what we are. Well, I did have a paper on quantum tunneling. That's actually recently been demonstrated to be the operating principle in animal digestion, I think. Like how do enzymes work? Is the quantum tunneling, yee-haw. Sure, sure. But I think what I took away from the paper and what was very interesting was these quantum state transitions happen all the time. Like even breathing is a quantum state transition, right? No, no. How so? Well, you have to understand fundamentally what's powering the body. So everything is ultimately a harmonic of the heart. Would you agree with that? A harmonic of the heart. What does that even mean? Like a harmonic is to do with sound. Yeah, so you understand how they're built upon each other, the harmonics. So there's a fundamental note and they're built upon each other. So the heart being the thing which is animated first with the five-week mark approximately is the thing which animates everything else. It's the fundamental note. Well, I mean, yeah. The heart is the monad of the body. See how it lends itself so well to metaphor? I'm not really. My monad is good. So the heart being the thing that pumps oxygen around your body. I don't think there's any dispute as to what the heart is. The question is why the heart is, why is it looking the way that it does? So that's, do you agree that it's the thing that animates everything else? It's the fundamental note of the body? Well, I'm not 100% sure. It all depends on how you want to see fundamental. You could see the brain as a fundamental note. Primary? It's the thing that is there working first. OK, sure. Would the heart work without the brain? Or can the brain work without the heart rate? It's the one that can operate in the absence of the others. The one that's animated first is the heart. It's just everything else, the heart's necessary for everything else to arise from. Prime mover, so to speak. Why does that do what it does? It's a four stroke pump. Well, there's no answer in this mutation model, is there? So we have to go to the sphere model and find out, well, the sphere is true. Only the sphere is true. So a sphere with four spheres inside of it oscillating around, well, that's super true. Because it's more true than just true. It's more than just one sphere. It's one sphere with four spheres in it, and why four? Well, there's an energetic reason for that. We won't go into it now, but there's levels of things being true. But we can do this. It's true that we're carbon based, but it's also true that we're symmetric. So things get more true as we become more convergent on a model that actually tells us why things are the way they are. Well, yeah, you just quickly rushed over. You asked, like, can your model explain why the heart is? And we do have ideas of why the heart evolved, as it did, from sort of cold-blooded animals to warm-blooded with the four-chambered heart. Those are like mechanical analogies, don't you think? It's more like, well, the heart surged to do this because it served this function. That's a little bit more what it is. It's not saying the heart looks this way because there's this fundamental principle that animates matter. That's not being said. I don't think that's true, and I don't think there's any evidence for that. Everybody up until the Christians thought it was true. So you're basically saying, I'm going to go with Christian metaphysics. Is that scientific? Well, I mean, I hear a lot of assertions coming from your why it's true, but there's no evidence. You're not presenting any evidence of that. Because it's a metaphysical aesthetic. It's not about whether it's true. It's about which metaphysical aesthetic gives us truths in the computationally simplest way, i.e. Occam's razor. And I'm arguing, maybe there's a learning curve at the beginning, but once you understand the mode of thinking, it's very, very straightforward because it doesn't include that many concepts, is literally you can analogize or make a metaphor the entire monad is just a sphere. When you understand it's not a perfect metaphor, but it's still harmonic or coherence with the whole thing. So if the heart's the monad of the body, why is that not a sphere? Sorry? Why is the heart, if the heart's the monad of the body, why isn't that a sphere? It is a sphere. It's just such a sphere. There's so much energy into it that it's become a super sphere, i.e. a sphere with four spheres popped inside of it. So it's like four spheres oscillating within a sphere. It's still a sphere. It's just like a super sphere, whenever you wanna call it, what? It doesn't look very spherical. It's pretty bad. I wouldn't call the heart a sphere. The field is a sphere within which four smaller spheres oscillate and the path of their oscillation is traced out by the heart. I don't see a sphere when I look at a heart. Well, you don't see a sphere when you look at a brain either, but the brain, you can get to a brain by deforming a sphere. It's just a question of how many steps? How many steps do I need to take to start at a brain? If I started a sphere, how many steps of deformations till I get to a brain? I mean, you can get to dog crap by deforming a sphere. I don't understand what to do with that. But if you do the deformation in a manner which is the simplest way, you can infer what actions are acting on the system. Yeah, that's... Because every action acting on a system is a deviation from a pure sphere form, including you. Right, but sort of a... That's... A gonad might be more spherical than the heart. So why is that suddenly not the monad of the body? It literally makes no sense for the body. I mean, a gonad, there's two of them, right? So the mechanism governing that in the heart is only one heart, so that's a different mechanism. But it's still a being of the same physics. Well, there's certainly more... This isn't really the topic that I wanted to cover to be honest with you, but... So do you have any evidence to show me that the heart is a deformed, perfect sphere under your model? Well, it's not a... Rather than the mechanistic sort of pump that has been evolved over time. Well, it is a pump. And the pump is assisting to project the spheres. The spheres are coming in. Project the spheres. Well, there's a cycle. So there's energy coming in from eating, and then you digest it, and then it makes the body, and it just goes in cycles. So the heart has a movement to it. But it's a question of why is the heart moving the way that it does? And what's the answer? Electricity? It's not an answer. That's just a word. Okay, well... I mean, there's a prediction. You could say that whatever the volumetric distortions of the heart, they'll be optimal modeling manner of the way the heart beats in a fluid vector diagram will be optimally modeled by four spheres vibrating inside a larger sphere. There's a prediction. Ooh! I think that electricity... Not an important thing about a science theory, though. I think that sort of electricity applied to a stop heart will restart it. So, I mean, why isn't that a good sign that electricity is the thing that makes the heart pump? Here's your metaphor. Okay, if you have a TV and you're watching NBC and then you smash the TV, okay? That doesn't do anything to the people in NBC, does it? It doesn't do anything to the signal that's passing through now nothing because you smash the TV. So you're talking about some kind of spiritual heart or some kind of supernatural heart? A spiritual heart, get it? Ooh! Ooh, that's so good and bad. Yeah, it's not terrible. Let's have a spiritual revolution, friends. So, what energy have you... Do you pack Chopra wishes he was as cool as me? Like, I don't think so. Go ahead, Mark. Right, right. Yeah, again, I just say that as an assertion that we've got no evidence that there is some kind of spiritual or spiritual heart that you've got here. You can't prove metaphysics. Metaphysics is what you use to prove things and this is your problem, not just yours, but everybody who is a materialist productionist. First principles. You can't say, here's my metaphysics and this is everything I believe based on that. It's just a series of facts that you've memorized. To me, that's disordered. I can't think that way. Everything to me has to be ordered. Well, I can have one absolute truth. What? And that's reality exists. I assure you that there's these vastly different interpretations of reality and you're wedded into this one without knowing what the alternatives are. But the problem is you want to say because of hard solipsism, we can't make any... Hey guys, one second, trying to get the sound fixed. Don't know why. Going through on the, the OBS. It still says me. Nice, nice. Oh, I keep on... Oh, desktop audio and here's something. It's back. People are saying it's back. All right, I'm just gonna leave it like that. Okay, I'm so sorry Interwebs, but as long as you can hear them, we are going to move into the Q&A. And don't forget to send in your questions to either sideshow nav or myself. And all right. Four, five dollars from Fat Man. Mark, the look on your face when y'all were talking about ideas was priceless. Five dollar question from conservative non-believer. What is Jen's model? $9.99? Yeah, I think it's coming through my actual speakers. I could try doing something again. I can't get OBS to make the desktop audio play again. And I don't know. No, I'm not. Say that again. I'm just using OBS on Windows. I don't think so, I'm trying to. Some people are saying loud and clear. Other people, we're gonna move on to another question from Farron Salas. Excuse me if you've already answered this, and I missed it, but Jen, what is an example of a species de-evolving and how we know from the genetic code that de-evolution took place? I can't hear Jennifer. Okay, hold on one second, guys. Jazz hands again. Okay, how about, let's see, da-da. Says that it's coming through my headset. You guys are coming in there. Mark, can you keep talking? I'm gonna keep on trying this until I can get it. There we go. There we go. I think I just fixed it. Hold on one second because I can hear you back now. Let's see if OBS is detecting it. Testing, testing, testing, testing. All right, internet webs. I think it's coming through. It says desktop audio. Mark? Yeah, if our volumes, like if the level we're coming up to in OBS looks about the same, it should be good. Test, test, test, test, test. I am so sorry. And let me tell you guys what happened. The cat was kept on scratch. I knew this was gonna happen. The cat was scratching, scratching, and scratching. When I got up to let the cat out, it knocked the headphone jack. So I am so sorry to you guys. I love my cat, but oh my lordy. So sending love out there, it should be now all fixed. And all right, we are going to move into the Q&A where everyone should now have their questions re-read because I want to make sure that everyone has it. So Fat Man said, Mark, the look on your face when y'all were talking about ideas was priceless. Oh, thank you. There you go. Conservative non-believer, what is Jen's model? It is based on perfect spheres and is the minimum complexity solution to maximally predictive physics. Thank you for asking. $5 from Thrilla from Manila. So shout out to Amy, the moderator. Thank you so very much. Yay, Amy. From FarronSales999, excuse me, if you already answered this and I missed it, but Jen, what is an example of species devolving and how we know from the genetic code that a D evolution took place? If it can go from A to B, but not from B to A, then it's the evolution. And actually, come to think of it that, I mean, I earlier stated the blue-eyes thing in Europe, but a better example might actually be Brassica because you can go from the mother species to any of the children, but the children can't then go back to, they can't be enticed to evolve back to the mother state. Meaning there's been a loss in terms of the potentiation of what micro states could be expressed. And this is evidenced by domain-specific adaptation where that information is going into being the perfect fit for that environment. So nowhere more evidence than the angler fish, which is actually a light-esque thing growing out of its forehead. Thank you. Question 599 from Chris Gamon. Oh, hi, Mark. I would like to both define what a genetic, I would like both of you, I assume, to define what a genetic mutation is. Thanks, Amy. Send in love. The genetic mutation is any... Oh, hi, Mark. A genetic mutation is any insertion, deletion, or replication of the genome that causes a change in the genetic makeup of the organism. Oh, I agree with Mark on everything, except it's not much causing the changes. But yeah, fair enough. That seems strange. How would you have the creature... Like, you know that the DNA is what causes us to, or everything, any organism, to be the way that it is, right? You would agree with that. No, it's all the mind. The mind controls the DNA, and the DNA is the proxy to the mind and the body. The mind is the ordering principle of the DNA. So why is it that when the DNA changes, you get a change in the physiology of the creature? You think that it's a mind... The mind changes the DNA, which then changes the body. I think I did think of a prediction. If you take something alive and knock out part of its genetic code, the mind will seek to bring it back to what it was before. So the effect... How do you know that's the mind? Do you have any evidence that it's the mind? It's a prediction of my model, so I guess go check it. But yeah, that would happen. The mind has an expected value by removing DNA. The expected value cannot be projected as easily, and therefore it will seek to, by Le Chatelier's principle, minimize the effect of this edit. So the mind isn't product of the brain in your model? The brain is a product of the mind, everything is. So why does the brain look the way it does? The mind. So everything would be just different proximities to the mind. So what's the closest organ to the mind? Well, there's two contenders. Do you know what they are? No, I'd rate to think. Brain and heart. There's arguments on both sides. Again, metaphysics, right? Anyway, I don't want to keep the show up. I know we have some super chats and go have that, Amy. Question from $5, not a chump. I have no idea what any of this was about, but Mark, can you put your bookcase right behind you? I want to see the books you read. Thanks, guys. It is way too heavy. I'm sorry. No, no, I'm not dragging my bookcase around. You can, I'll give you a book list or something. Mm-hmm. $2 super chat from M6. Mark, I really feel bad. This must be painful for you. No, not at all. Not at all. I actually like talking to Jen. Look, I don't agree with Jen. That's why I'm... Look, it would be a boring debate if you agreed with everything that somebody said. Right? It would be boring. So I disagree with everything Jen says. And she is a wonderful person at the same time. I love this debate. I agree on hearts. That's the one thing we can come together. And all right. We're going into normal questions, though. If you want your questions sent to the front of the line, super chats are activated for either or both of our interlocutors, but from smack dab, how does Jennifer's model explain the diversity of life on earth? Maybe start with the basics and build it up for us. I would take a really long time and I promised James that I wouldn't do this and wreck the show, but basically I'll just give you a little teaser, thermodynamic microstate. So we're starting with a very simple fundamental state and then growing up from there with our ironic residences and then the amount of microstates associated with each residence grows exponentially. So we can talk about that more. I'll do an after show and yeah. Go into any questions people may have as well. Some diagrams. Thank you so much. All right. Moving right along. Rolling rock. Does she deny quantum mechanics? No, I heavily affirm it. Gosh dang it. I love quantum mechanics. I just might disagree on axioms. I think that you would disagree with most physicists on quantum mechanics, right? Well, it depends how strong of a, how much of a Socratic shuffle I really make in the presentation of my model. I'm sure if I presented and say, well, you agree with causality, right? They'd be like, sure. So it might be a bit of a, depending on the rhetorical spin there, but probably most of them know would not stick their reputations to go publicly to defend my theory. Question from Mr. White male, church of entropy, wouldn't simpler organisms be better survivors? Why do things get more complex in the natural selection model? Well, there's a lot more really simple organisms, just purely the numbers. There are way fewer animals than there are bacteria, for example, but there's so much energy, right? There's so much energy. We live in such a complicated universe of so many archetypes, micro states that we've been around for so long, so much energy has come into our, our planet through the three dimensional lens of the atmosphere by the moon, right? There's just been so much churning that all these super high valued micro states can also be occupied. But in terms of numbers, yeah, the lowest energy states will always be occupied in the greatest amount. That the fact that there's been evolution of incredibly complex species does not contradict that. I hope I answered the question you actually asked. Thank you. Two dollar super chat from pseudonym. For both, what's the biggest problem with each other's model? The biggest problem with Jen's model is the lack of evidence. She's got nothing to actually back up any of the assertions or claims that her model makes. And, you know, she's made predictions maybe one day in future it will come true, but for the moment it's just basically just bringing assertions to the table. The biggest issue is the increasing complexity that doesn't correspond is like not resonant with the fundamental node. So it's just adding on a bunch of maybe rationalizations with regards to stuff like junk DNA and really not being, not having a unified whole. I'm just not on board if there's no unified whole. Maybe that means I'm like too stubborn or whatever, but I'm not changing it. I don't care. I just don't really think people are going to remember things that are un-compelling. And no matter how compelling you make truth about the universe, probably people will forget it anyway. So I mean, we're talking about like what are the chances anyway is going to understand stuff ever. And I'm saying you don't understand it in a way that you can actually go forward and say this is what's going to happen in the future. Like for example, carcinization is something that's been observed, but I can't really say why. But in my model and the measurement limit, yeah, we can say why because of the crab is just reaching the measurement limit for that particular space temporal niche. So the problem is that the model is essentially an explanation, not predictive. It doesn't reflect how it works. It does correspond to, as I said earlier, the de-evolution thing, which the proponents denies a thing, which I think is really sort of mind-boggling. But essentially you're not having a simple, you could call it top-down or bottom-up. I mean, I don't really know what the right term is, but it's got to be not maybe not so much about that, but about simple to complex. Right now your model's complex on the bottom level, which you don't want, complex because you believe in randomness, which is the engine of mutation, and you can't establish that randomness exists. And in fact, it doesn't exist. Your model's based on something that doesn't exist. Thank you. And I think Chris Gaiman wanted a note to his super chat. Can please both define what a genetic mutation is? He gave the answer and I said, I agree with him, except I don't agree that it's the prime mover for what the species looks like. We already answered that one. Gotcha. Moving right along. Question. Why is, from Master QT1, why is evolution incompatible with Jen's God, the universal conception? I don't think it is. I really don't think it is. It's just that there's no evidence to show that there was any kind of mind starting the process. Evolution doesn't get into where life came from originated or what started the process of evolution at all. It's just a model to describe how things change over time and why they change over time. Technically randomness is heresy. I'm sorry. Sorry. I'm sorry, but randomness is heresy. God only allows a order. Sorry. It is technically theoretical. It's not that bad of karma because I don't think you intentionally are blaspheming the God of the universe. You should leave it at that. That sort of implies a determinism. We're in a deterministic universe. It's pretty obvious. Look how much order there is. There's disorder as well. Yeah, I think that some things are perfectly, perfectly random. That is a supernatural belief that you can't substantiate with any evidence. So you don't subscribe to chaos theory in any way. Chaos theory is not really saying that randomness exists. It's described well, from what I understand, chaotic systems are ones that as time goes on, their conditions depend more on their initial conditions than earlier, which to me doesn't make any sense at all. Unless there's some sort of temporal crystallization, which again, the parameters aren't set forth for, so it can't be established. No, it's kind of a non-sense. Random patterns have an underlying order that they will become ordered systems. That's chaos theory. Yeah. Well, I agree order will happen, but how can you establish that chaos is a thing or randomness? It's not real. So if I pick certain things at random, you don't think that's random? It's completely constrained to the states that are available. Yeah. I mean, this is a big conversation. This could be like an hour's long conversation about philosophy. I feel like Amy's on the verge of cringing, and my whole goal with this was to not make anybody cringe this whole debate. I like the back and forth actually. And all right, we're going to move on into slow moon buggy. I don't believe in evolution. So de-evolution would also be non-sense, both are category errors. Is that a question? More of a comment really, but it seems like take a pot-shot at both. Yeah. So he's saying that if you don't think evolution is a thing, then de-evolution can't exist either. I'm not sure that's necessarily true, but it is a good question. Question from Thrilla from Manila. What is a monad? It's the Unmoved Mooper. It's a formerly very abstract religious concept, which was branched into several fields, including calculus and what they call primitive notions about medicine, but are actually far more informationally dense than a lot of the rival models you get around today. But it's the basic idea that the properties of the prime mover may be known explicitly, even though they're only a model, the fact that a model may be explicitly stated is enough to make predictions. It's not. A matter of whether the monad exists, it's a matter of whether what we observe accords with the monad existing. So it's like a support stand to make all the rest of our observations make sense. Historically, we'd call that God, and say God is the ground of reason, i.e. the universe God exists. Nothing is possible without the universe God existing. So that's why all these Aquinas type arguments are all ripped off, but not because it's the only ones who actually make sense with regards to consistent metaphysics. Thanks for the question. I hope I answered it. Woo! $2 Super Chat from John Rapp. Mark, are you debating Jen Wheeler? Ken's double. What? Spicing. Not sure. Who are you? I don't know who you're talking about. Alright, moving right along. Rolling Rock. What predictions, Jen? What does it predict? Exclamation Mark questions. It is a framework for parameterizing any question in a manner that maximally aligns it with its natural eigenstates. Okay. It is a metaphysical, primarily metaphysical approach because space-time is not fundamental. It is emergent to fail to acknowledge that. It's to catapult your metaphysics into the relevance. Those who deny the importance of metaphysics don't understand why it's supremely important because science doesn't really work without being able to invoke different types of metaphysics. On the same basis, you'd invoke different types of hypotheses. There's two aspects. There's the post metaphysical, sort of, there's this metaphysical event. There's pre and post, and there's rules to find in advance, like in algebra. There's a list of axioms without that list. Nothing in algebra makes sense. That applies also to arguments. So that's the sort of greater point I'm trying to make with these discussions that if we want to actually get to more certainty with truth, we have to actually go a little bit further than just secretizing to the end of time and trying to think that some sort of logical inconsistency somehow means your argument falls apart. Thank you. Another question from Master QD1. The monad, like the Gnostic monad. I realize T-jump's a Gnostic because he thinks that the material world is the evil. Because he can't get said, so let's call the matrix of stat. Yeah, Gnosticism, I mean that would take hours to explain, but essentially it's one of the early sects of Christianity that I believe was declared, perhaps declared theoretical prior to even the Aryan heresy, but that's not really my domain of expertise. Thank you very much. You may have covered this, but if not, I want to make sure. Thrilla from Manila. Can we ask Jen to please define what a monad is? Unmoved mover. It's the source of all variations in the world. So you could say like, right now basically what people are saying is that calculus is the unmoved mover. So some sort of formulation we encram in a calculus, that's going to tell us what the prime mover looks like. Or there's people that say, you don't even need a prime mover. You can do infinite regression, which obviously makes no sense because there's pretty simple cyclicity to the rules of our universe. It's hard to really go into these subjects in depth because despite the traditional teaching method is so important because I have to go in and see where you're at to try to get you to look at the question in the right way. Everybody's sort of in a different perspective. And a lot of it comes down to defining words, but it's also about beliefs. So thanks for asking and be very unrealistic to expect to understand the stuff of the course of one debate. Take maybe months just to get a basic grip. So thank you for your interest. Got another super chat coming in along with a lot of questions. So if you want your question moved to the front of the line, feel free to send in those super chats, but $5 from Kevin C. How does smashing a TV and not affecting the people being broadcasted rebut mark saying that electrical pulses make the heartbeat? He's saying that the television, so the metaphor here is that the television is the person and the consciousness is the broadcast signal being interpreted by the TV, right? So if you break the TV, then there's problems receiving the signal. The point is that you get the same effect. Regardless of the model, you get the same effect. So the fact that that effect happens doesn't speak to the truth of either model because one is just saying, well, there's this mind that's the actual first domino. And then everything else. So a lot of the stuff true in the way Mark understands it will still be true in the way I understand it. There's just this prime mover ask thing, but it is actually a mover. It's only a pseudo prime mover, right? Because it's made out of light so it can move a bit. It's just a lot more static than everything else. But understanding things is a hierarchy of. Staticity or resistance to monasticity. Then you can order your own thought process. It is something more realistic. Thank you. I think a better analogy would be that if you had a TV and you pull out the power, it stops broadcasting, right? So you can try this with TVs, even if there is a spirit lack of electricity. Well, that would be killing someone, right? Like unplugging the TV is a metaphor for killing someone. So I don't want to kill them, but if we smash the TV, like maybe it's still has sort of smashing the TV, killing them. I don't. It's a, it's not a great metaphor is that it would, it would have to be. We need to make the metaphor more complex. What's the difference between a metaphor and analogy? Why? Why does that distinction matter? Well, because the metaphor has a sort of poetic expression to it while analogy is supposed to be analogous. So I have to run my comparisons by you to see how poetic you think they are before I can designate them. If you're making an analogy, it's kind of like a misdirect to say, Hey, it's a metaphor because a metaphor doesn't have to be analogous, right? One would hope that it would be, I think. Leads some pretty boring poetry. You've muted Amy. Double tapped. Kevin C. I want to try one more time because he's saying it wasn't answered, but for $5, how does smashing a TV and it's not affecting the people broadcasting rebut mark saying that the electrical pulses has been rejected. Rejected. But if not, it is the same. I want to make sure everyone has their super chat read, but I also, you know, I don't want them also if they give an answer. It doesn't like then. Fine. I could, I'll answer it again. I'll try to re-answer it framing it differently. But if the mind is the prime mover and you knock out part of the genetics, the mind still has to contend with the fact that genetics have been knocked out. So there will be some effect, but it's not the genetics being changed. That is the prime cause of the final effect. That's the question. The effects we're observing are true under both models. In theory, but I'm saying they're not even true in theory with Mark's model, because punctuated equilibrium literally contradicts the prediction of this model in the models itself. So flimsy that the people working in biology cannot extract predictions from it. So I go in and extract predictions. They tell me they're not predictions, but they can't say why they're not predictions because they actually do follow from the axioms of the model, which is this very slow, gradual, mutated, leading to greater fecundity. That's a very precise identification that we just don't see. If we did it, it would be continuous deformation of species. There'd be literally one different shape of every single intermediary instead of these vast alterations in small time periods. I hope that answers it. Maybe the metaphor wasn't great. The point being behind it all was that. Whether the mind is the prime mover or the DNA, the effect will be the same. It's just that you're adding a new thing in the chain, i.e., the signal in the TV, right? That's a question of whether the metaphor, the metaphor is adding this additional layer of abstraction, say that TV broadcasting something is not just the TV itself. It's a signal plus the TV. Your consciousness is not just your body. There's a mind also animating it, right? Look at that. That's a quantum waveform. See? That can even make it look vibrating. How do I do that? Is that electricity? Or does that look like maybe something a little bit more fluid? Like a hyper fluid. Anyway, I apologize if this answer was not what you'd hoped it would be, but hopefully that clears it up some. Thank you so very much, Jen. Kevin, hope that clears up your answer. And we're moving on. And they'll keep on sending in those superstructures. Question from Thrilla from Manila. Monad Singularity, or alone, refers in Khazmajani to the supreme being, divinity, or the totality of all things. So, Monad equal God, question mark? Just because that's true doesn't mean you can't use it for secular signs. So, Monad equals God. Monad equals God, question mark? Just because that's true doesn't mean you can't use it for secular science. But technically everything is unharmonic of the Monad. It's just that since we only experience a tiny little band, it appears that there's this second realm. So we need to have dualism, approximately dualism, because we are ourselves. A defiance is oneness by our very existence. Thank you for the question. I think he really wants to know, ladies and gentlemen, Thrilla from Manila, how is quantum mechanics related to Monads? We are getting to the bottom of Monads. Do we accept my authority now? That didn't take very much time. That's awesome. In my opinion, how does it, is the observer effect in the sphere? So you can argue, I can make an argument for the importance of the sphere, the perfect sphere in the reasoning process based on the observer effect, which comes from quantum mechanics. So the way I understand quantum mechanics is all based on a type of mononatology, aka these perfect geometric shapes, which are tacitly understood to not be directly observable, but also to be the operating or animating principle of these observable systems. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Question from Blaster Master. Are you holding an after-show? I will say that I may be holding a late-late after-show. I know Jen is holding her own after-show, so go check that out. And I know that Mark is going to be heading to the modern-day debate discord server to answer some questions or have some fun afterwards, so go check all that out. And I just linked their channels in the chat, and so go check that out, ladies and gentlemen, both Jen and Mark have their respective channels, and we're moving right along. Puttyfoot, question for Jennifer. Am I a perfect sphere? Can I use this fact to tell my wife I don't need to lose weight? Well, that really depends on the axioms and protocols you have operating with your wife, which is probably a question for another topic, so definitely tell James to get me back on the show, and I will answer all your metaphysical questions. Thank you so much. Questions you didn't even know you wanted to ask. Mm-hmm. From Sam, question for Mark, in layman's terms, what is the best evidence slash logic you're aware of for abiogenesis, regardless of whether you believe in it or no, which leads us to follow up, how do you believe evolution started? Yeah, so the best evidence for abiogenesis, which I don't subscribe to as a working theory because there are some gaps and problems with it. So we can sort of formulate the way that RNA got started by the linking of simple proteins, and if you follow it from a sort of top-down structure, you can't get to the very simple organisms, but you can do that bottom-up. And people have in a lab replicated the forming of RNA. We just can't do that leap to the formation of DNA, which don't get me wrong, that is a huge problem. It doesn't necessarily falsify abiogenesis, but I think until we have that last piece of the puzzle, it isn't a theory in science, unfortunately. But people are working on it, and we'll see what comes of it. How can you falsify a theory you haven't made? All abiogenesis is saying that life came from non-life. You falsify hypotheses. I thought you said you could falsify abiogenesis. Did I hear that wrong? Yeah, sure. It is a hypothesis. You should be able to falsify it. It's not a hypothesis. It's a definition saying life came from non-life. Abiogenesis would be... If it was an actual hypothesis, it would be a model saying how it happened. Yeah. Well, I mean, it is a model of how it happened to proteins from RNA, then from DNA. You sure about that? I was actually looking into this earlier, and it didn't appear that this RNA world was an accepted hypothesis. Maybe it sort of depends. Well, I never said it was accepted. It's just that's one of the models, the best working model that we have at the moment. But that's why I'm not saying that I believe it because it has problems, as I readily admit. But that doesn't mean that it didn't happen or I claimed to know that it didn't happen. I don't know how life got started because scientists don't know how life got started. Well, somebody knows, Mark. Somebody knows. Maybe one day somebody else will know and we'll know that there's no F-in-way that was ever RNA-based life, won't we? We'll know exactly why that is. It'll be a good day, won't it? It'll be a very good day when that happens. Well, when you get your paper published, do you send me a copy? Yeah, I'll be the first one I call. I promise. First one, yeah, definitely. I'll be on the Discord on the voice chat. Mark, just what? My paper. For Jennifer, when you said beyond true, do you mean logically true? What I mean is that for something to be true, there are certain things that have to exist prior to establishing whether something's true. So truth, you could say, well, it's that which corresponds to reality. Okay, well, what's reality? Well, I exist. Can we be sure about that? You can be reasonably sure something exists and that we're something, it appears to be that we are something within something that exists, which experiences some type of separateness from that which exists. That is true. What else is true? I mean, that's sort of true in a more absolute sense, but it's still not true beyond what a human can know. Knowing things, knowing truths is something that is predicated on our ability to think. Our subjectivity, so. Truth is always relative to axioms. Technically, I would say it's easier to understand it by means of a proof. Truth is something you can prove, and false is something you can disprove. And then what does it take to prove or disprove something? Well, disproving something takes an axiom, which is a positive assertion that you're pretty reasonable. We're reasonably sure it's true, like causality. So it's a, you know, someone said, I gave birth to my mother, you'd be like, well, that violates causality, so that's not true. And you'd be pretty, pretty much right on that, don't you think? So you need at least an axiom for something to be false. Now, for something to be true, it needs to go a little higher. It needs to meet a standard of truth. And there are varying standards of truth. Some are ultra stringent and all the way on down. So truth has what you might call resonant harmonics and some assertions, which can be called true, aren't the same type of true. For example, I'm in a bad mood and gravity is the fundamental law of the universe. Those are not quite the same because the gravity is always going to be true. I probably won't always be in that bad mood, right? So pretty complicated thing. Hope that answers or starts to answer the question. A $5 question from pseudonym. What about tasty wheat? What if tasty wheat actually tastes like oatmeal or tuna? How did sphere figure out what chicken tastes like or tastes like everything? This is, I believe, a matrix-inscribed question. Yeah, matrix reference. Well, we did cover hard solipsism, which is sort of very matrices. So I think it's definitely on theme, whoever wrote that one. So the matrix is real, then? Or not unreal? Impossible to tell. I mean, that's simulation theory, right? Basically, it's simulation theory. No way to tell. We are somewhat of a simulation about zero point energy. So it may not be entirely incorrect to characterize it that way. And so I guess the question just rephrased is how does the sphere know what chicken, know what food tastes like? The sphere is the ground of knowing. Okay, so it's not even the sphere. There's an attribute of the monad. The monad is the ground of knowing. So the first stage of what exists is not knowing. Knowing is something that a bunch of other stuff has to exist before you can define knowing as existing. That's the point. You have to try to mischaracterize these questions like prove God. No, God's the ground of proof. God's what you use to prove other things. God's the thing you assert is true in order to be able to say that these other things are false. And God is the source of logic, which then tells you which are the appropriate accepted criteria for establishing a proof, a.k.a. whether something's true. Thank you for that. I have a counter argument that says that the sphere didn't know what chicken tasted like. So it made everything taste like chicken. And that's why that happened. I suppose you could say that the chicken state is the maximum entropy state, but then you need to try to prove that. And I really don't know how we're going to do that, but we have probably a lot of time to focus on that. We're going to prove half the things that have been brought up in here, honestly. We've got lots of time. From Top Dog, for Jennifer, when you said, oh, no, we've just read that, but send them love Top Dog. Amber Ray question, modern day debate for Mark, does he think junk DNA has a function? No, no, it doesn't. It's just junk DNA. I mean, some of it may have a function that we're unaware of, but we definitely have organisms that have mutations in the areas that are junk DNA that have no effect on the organism whatsoever, or literally zero effect. So at least some of it has no function only. Thanks. I do have one for Jen now. Came in late curious. Do you follow John C. Sandford's Jensen's, Nathaniel Jensen's, or Timothy Albertos, and what are your thoughts in regarding if so? He's pointing this at Jen. Sorry, most of the people I'm aware of have been dead for quite some time, in that sense. From Get Standfield, the four spheres oscillating around it, so I'll explain this, please, in detail. As much as I would love to, I literally promised James that I wouldn't do this, and it was a condition for me coming on the show. So come on over to my post-show. I'll explain the spheres. It does take a bit of time, and it'll be helpful if there was actually someone they're interested in learning for me to talk them through it because it's hard for me to relate because everybody's sort of individual. Everyone learns in their own way, but if there's a question and answer session that brings the points, maximum clarity, fastest. Thank you. And we will always support after-shows here, so don't forget to check out both Jen and Mark at the modern-day debate discord and at Jen's channel. So, woo-hoo! But moving right along, Albu... Abel Cain's brother, present-day species evolved from simpler ancestral types by processes of natural selection acting on the variability in populations. So you cannot use the variability in populations for evidence. I'm not sure who that is aimed at. I really hope that's not for me. I'm going to say that over one more time. If anyone of you... Present-day species evolved from simpler ancestral types by process of natural selection acting on the variability in populations. So you cannot use the variability in populations for evidence. Well, that's not, you know, exactly true and it's the population density around the place that we're kind of using as the evidence, not the fact that there is variability. There's always going to be variability in populations. But, you know, you have variability in certain places, like, for instance, in Australia, that was the evidence that you may be referring to, that there's very, very... There are almost no placental mammals and all marsupials. And it's the distribution of populations that we're looking at. I think that's maybe what he was getting at. I'm not 100% sure what that question is getting at. All right, moving right along. If you don't feel like any of your questions are answered, you could always resend them, though we do have super chats moving right to the front of the line. So keep on sending those in and sending love out there on the internet sphere. Captain Rabbit, T-Jump said the other day when he conceives of infinity, he sees a series of dots flowing, dots or spheres. Therefore, T-Jump agrees with Jennifer, right? I don't want to speak for T-J there, but theoretically he's a naturalistic pantheist, which is, at least to name only, the same as me, but he thinks it's possible to have a non-mind, hasn't learned that you can't assert a negative axiom yet, so essentially we diverge on everything except for the name. I don't think T-Jump's a pantheist. I would be highly surprised if that's just the way... He cited naturalistic pantheism as a defense of his arguably atheistic skeptical position, I believe. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong in the audience. I think that's what was said. And question from Frank. Is the Church of Entropy tax exempt? It's not a real church. That is the name of my YouTube channel. Well, it's odd because I came across a story that was the first fragmented church of entropy, and it was basically pointing out how organized religion or a church is organization, whereas entropy is disorganization, so a church of entropy is ultimately self-defeating. What do you think of that, Jen? I think it's pretty much par for the course because the name was revealed to me by the spirits, and they do tend to be quite the trolls at times, so... Oh, spirits. I would be foolish to go against their wishes, I think. What spirit was it? Whisky, vodka? What are we talking about here? The spirits, Mark. The ones who also gave me the quantum periodic table. Oh, okay. They mediate all my knowledge, so we should be grateful to them as well as me if we're indeed grateful for my DJ. Well, if I ever say them, I will thank them. Two dollars? Just have to stop not seeing them, Mark, and you'll be good. I'll work on that. Two dollars super chat from Harry Penis. Praise God. Jen, is the monad alive, and does it have a mind? It's not alive. Whether it has a mind depends on the definition, so I would say maybe the first attribute of monad is something we could describe as mind-like, so the quantum periodic table, that's the metaphor. Is that a mind? I mean, clearly it's not the reductive definition of we need a brain for a mind. I mean, that sort of defeats the purpose of the argument, right? The actual question is whether you need a brain for a mind. Shouldn't presume the conclusion. Hopefully that answers the question. I'm not going to come back into regular questions, but keep on sending those super chats in, send it right to the front. From Puttyfoot, I would love her to define information. Yeah, that's a great question. When I define terms, I'm trying to go with what is the term, what is the best definition? So I might not use the exact definition, that's everybody else agrees, but I'm really trying to minimize the number of terms. There's something like information. There's a lot of assumptions you need to take on board before you can define something like information, so it's probably better just not to. And then look at the theory, understand it really well, and then we'll get an inkling as to what information is. Same with God. Don't presume God, and other than the tautological sense that's in the universe exists. You want to wait till you understand something concretely verifiable, i.e. physics, and then wait to sort of see what pops out of that in terms of awareness. So I don't know if that fully answers the question, but it is a bit abstract, this stuff. So bear with me. I think I'm peaked here. Question from my name, my last name. Where is the mind in a plant? It's not centralized. So it's more so diffused. Where is the brain head? The brain is an organ which centralizes the mind, so most of our mind is going to be brain adjacent. That's what it's for. So the fact plants don't have that can infer that their mind is going to be, there's essentially nothing to gather the energy of the mind to one place, like how our skull gathers the energy of our mind to the brain. Plant doesn't have that, so it's all just diffuse. Doesn't mean it doesn't have intelligence. Still alive, but yeah. Doesn't have a centralized organ for consciousness, centralized or mind centralized. I'm using the two terms interchangeably, excuse me. From human girl, please ask the lady, where is the mind in a eucalyptus tree? It's a photonic field that encompasses the entire thing and has what are called local maxima that can have local maxima. So our mind encompasses at least our whole body and probably more, probably spill over. But the energetic maximum is in the cranium. So those two things are true at the same time. They're not incompatible truths. They're just layer incompatible truths. And as we do that in the right order, we get a more specific answer. Oh, sorry. I remember what the question was from before was about information. Information is the fundamental thing in the universe because the measurement limit three plus one, there's only three plus one dimensions of information that you can get per canonical order, but that's too abstract for most people to use right off the hop. So I would say rest assured information exists, but you have to make a distinction between linearly independent information and dependent information. So it's not just about what data we can access. It's about how much redundancy is there in the data. And that's one of the problems that there are with the current interpretation of biology is like DNA is a code. It's like, no, it's not a one to one code. The information is in the monad can prove the information comes from the monad. And if anyone asks, I'll do it on my post show. If you're interested. Question from an alien jujitsu. D evolution is evolution backwards. Evolution is when it goes from being less complicated to more complicated. So the operating mechanism is you have a bunch. You have a population. You have a population. You have a population. You have a population. You have a population. You have a population. Okay. And there's individuals, but you count the population as a whole. And then there's an event that happens that causes for the population as a whole to be more efficient at digesting solar photon. That's your condition. Greater efficiency. Why? Because we have a bunch of energy coming in from the sun. And we're just going to progress for being better digestors because we're always doing wish Italian's principle, which is a manner of interpreting entropy, which basically seems to be spreading out of all the space. And that's the way that clears it up. I'm trying to think of this a real question. That is not a real question. Are you in the troll, the uncanny valley of troll? There is definitely an uncanny valley. I have to now say it. I don't want to say it. Because do you think? No. Oh my God. Do you think the Islamic Pikachu will move to Afghanistan? I now have said it and we're now going to move on to Turkey. All right. Moving right along. These are the brain seizures we're bringing up. Captain Rabbit, does Jen think that Prime Mover came from the nothingness? I think it always existed. There's a separate question as to whether one should contemplate the nothingness prior to invoking concepts like that. But that's a bigger conversation. But I just believe it was always there. Hold on. How can Jennifer agree with quantum physics within the heart of quantum physics is randomness Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Oh, I'm done for. All right, guys. Just kidding. Uncertainty is not randomness. It's actually very, very, very, very deterministic. Uncertainty is actually what gives us this slight teeny mini scotch of freedom in an otherwise deterministic universe. It gives us degrees of freedom rather than just pure, like, hello, everybody. I'm a deterministic robot. Thank you for the question. May I ask Jen, what happens when we die? Your consciousness becomes unsheathed because your body is a sheath and then it goes by, by and then it's just your consciousness. And then you think away all your thoughts and feel away all your feelings and sense away all your sensations down to which call the zero point energy, i.e. the personality, which there is nothing which can cause this wave, something wave function, what I call wave form to decay from quantum. We know that a wave system cannot decay without a measurement device. And the only measurement device which will decay this somewhat decayed wave form, it's been voided of the higher perceptions like thoughts, emotions, and sensations. But the only thing that can decay the residual ZPEAK personality is a fetus. So when that's ready to happen, it'll trend towards the fetus with which it has maximum harmonic resonance. This is one of the universal principles of, I guess you call it a harmonic resonance principle that you are attracted to. You can just say reincarnation, Jen. Well, they asked me what happened. I was trying to give a full answer, but I guess this is turning into a mini-servant. I'll just, I'll wrap it up. You can just say reincarnation. Thanks, Mark. Yeah, thanks. No worries. I'm sorry. I'm trying not to. People to help me. No worries. Muted, Jen. Muted by me. Did it again. I have a question for Jennifer. Do you think you can move Mark's bookcase using only your mind? Well, if I go to his house and I can use only my mind to animate my body to maybe move it a little bit, but it depends if he's all right with that again. Well, that's not really only your mind. It's also your body, right? Well, my body is on the harmonic of my mind. It's just the lowest harmonic. The same way the material realm is the lowest harmonic of the monad. It makes sense to have a synthetic dualism. Well, it is. It's just doesn't seem like it is. It makes sense to impose a synthetic dualism and say, yeah, they're effectively different, but really one is just the lowest. One is the, I think what they're getting at is that your body isn't involved, right? Can you move something with your mind when your body isn't involved in the process? Can I move something with my mind when my body isn't involved? Right. I suppose it depends what it is. I think that's everything that matters. Yes. The material objects. No, bookcases. No, I can't. Okay. Question from second horizon. What is random? Mark, you take this one. You're the one who believes in it. Yeah. So random events. I guess, I guess they're just things that happen. That we don't have a structured explanation for, but I get what Jen's saying that everything's deterministic. There's, you know, if you dig down, there's a reason behind this and a reason behind this and a reason behind this, but we generally apply the word random to things that are not knowable because of the long chain of causality that eventuates in the things happening. Question from biscuit vapes question to Jennifer. How do you explain the graduated changes recorded over the last 100 years in species like a finch and the wood moth? It's devolution. Devolution is very slow. But that's only part of it. Part of it is devolution. Part of it is macro evolution is that quantum state transition. That's where all the new information is coming from. That's where you need to focus is that that transition happens only once, but then it can be going into a bunch of different environments, right? Lots of variety on earth. Thanks for the question. I think we ended up getting this sent in by a super chat, but Harry asks, where did the monad come from? It's the prime mover, meaning it's uncreated. It's like saying, where did the universe come from? Well, it's always been there. This is just the generating function in some sense of the universe. Question from Captain Rabbit. Jen, does Jen think the prime mover came from the nothingness? I think that one's already been asked. Okay. We'll keep on moving right along. The Kitsune Cavalier. Hold on. How can Jennifer agree with? Oh, no, that was the Heisenberg. Gotcha. Gotcha. Give me one second. Some of the human girl asks, what is the mind again? Well, there's two answers to that. But in this conversation, I was just referring to it as the same thing as human subjective consciousness. And there are other things that could be described as mind, but in the interest of not making the people listen to this cringe anymore than they already have, I'll just save that for another day. Moving right along. Philosopher from Dixie. Question for Jennifer. Can you show us your new age crystal collection and essential oils? Uh-oh. Spicy. Oh yeah, that's real spicy. I don't know. Here, I'll get the closest thing that I have. I got this in Mexico. It's an owl. It's pretty cute, eh? Thank you. There you go. There's your answer. Moving right along. Skeptic 77. Monads equal platonic forms. Question mark. I think the monad is the set of all platonic forms. I'm just kind of using that word, you know, to sort of trojan horse my own ideas. And so don't take it too seriously. Do your own research, folks. It's all about having fun and getting to know interesting personalities on the Internet. Ultimately having better debates with tighter arguments. That's right. And we are actually coming to the end of the questions. Just a few more left. So if you have the burning desire to know the minds of our lovely Mark Reed or Jennifer, now is the time to send those questions in. And as always, super chats get moved right to the front of the line. But from John Rapp, the egg nearly always comes before the chicken. Who eats chicken for breakfast? It's an egg of chicken is the correct answer to that. Yeah. So, um, yes, eggs came before chickens because, you know, dinosaurs still laid eggs, but they weren't chickens yet. And they evolved into chickens. So of course, eggs came before chickens. All right. Along Dagobah Dave, if we debunk evolution, well, most of the medical advancement we've made in the past 50 years fade out like the images of Marty McFly's siblings from that Polaroid. Yes. There we go. Getting the true answers tonight. Amber Ray, if evolution is a theory and the theory never becomes a fact, how is evolution a fake? Or a fact. Yeah. So fact. You know, it says F-A-K-E. And I just read it. That is what it says. But you're right. If evolution is a theory and a theory never becomes fact, how is evolution a fact? You're right. That's how it should be. So evolution is both... Like in my introduction, I went over this evolution is both a theory and a fact. There's a fact that things change over time. And everybody agrees on that. It's not something that anybody would say, hey, animals and organisms stay exactly the same. They don't say that, right? Everybody, it's an indisputable fact that things change over time. The theory of evolution, as opposed to evolution itself, the theory is the model that describes how that happens and why that happens. That's it. There's no... So the theory of evolution never comes a fact. The fact of evolution supports the theory of evolution. From Sam99 again, what if Pi is a mathematically formula showing biblical God starts with 3 is infinite and somehow relates to your stuff about spheres, but isn't everything is God's thoughts. For context-ish, mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe by Galileo. Can we read that one more time? It sounds like someone has had maybe some inspiration from the things that I was saying. So as regards whether... Maybe if it can be used to assert something about something in a theological story, maybe, I think you can understand theology better through science and then logic is sort of the go-between. So definitely you can volley your understanding between disciplines, because each discipline gives you... There's an overlap in what it gives you and then there's additional information that you just can't get and either want it. So it's definitely not incompatible as long as you're approaching it correctly. So great question. I hope people do go in this direction. And I sent to the chat, if you don't mind me putting the link to my post-show, because I can't share links, but if you don't mind, thank you. Appreciate that. And while I'm doing that question from Captain Rabbit, Jen did the prime mover decide his first movement or was it more of an urge? Because if it was an urge, which it had no conscious control of, wouldn't it have been unpredictable? This is another cryptonostic I'm dealing with here. This is a model to understand the universe. So when we're looking at Cartesianism, what are we doing? We're saying we can understand the universe by putting space at 90 degrees to time. Is that true? Well, no. Space and time are actually entangled, but on small enough resolution, it seems like maybe they're not. Yeah. I'm sorry. I forgot what the question was. Can you just repeat the question? These metaphors are becoming too complex even for me. Jen, did the prime mover decide his first movement or was it more of an urge? Because if it was an urge, which it had no conscious control of, wouldn't it have been unpredictable? The prime mover can't make a decision. The prime mover is unmoved, meaning that its attributes cannot change. So can a sphere's attributes change? No, they can't. But something with sphere-like properties, those attributes can change. Like, if I wanted to, I could just squish this thing into a... That would be easy to deform it from a sphere, but I can't deform the platonic sphere, because it's a concept that exists beyond my capacity to smush it. Good question. Question from Amber Ray, and this may be one of the last questions before we go into outros. Amber Ray, modern-day debate, to mark any laws of evolution. Are there any laws of evolution? I don't think so. I mean, the only laws of evolution is just the laws of physics that govern it. I don't think that evolution has any natural laws that are applicable to it, or I'm not aware of it anyway, biologists might know more about it than I do. But it's a good question. Woo-hoo! All right. And with that, I think that's going to conclude our Q&A section. I hope you guys had fun tonight, and I'm going to hand it off to Mark and then Church of Entropy just to wrap up your final thoughts and to say goodbye. Tell us what you're doing, and we'll head out to our respective aftershows or the modern-day debate discord. That's right, baby. Modern-day debate has a discord server, but Mark, the floor is all yours. Thank you, Amy. Yeah, I'm going to be at the modern-day discord, which is going to be a fun time, and I invite you to come along and chat or ask questions or whatever you want to do, have a debate or what have you. So the process of evolution is the most tested theory in scientific knowledge, and an overwhelming amount of scientists do believe it is the best explanation for the genetic diversity of life throughout our planet. It doesn't get into things like how where life came from or any big metaphysical questions. All it does is explain biodiversity, and that's all. Unfortunately today, I think that Jen's model is really interesting, but it didn't come with any kind of evidence besides sort of the claims and assertions that she's made about it. And maybe one day in the future, her predictions will come true about what she predicts is going to happen, but until that happens, we have no evidence to think that it's actually true. And I would rather go with the proven scientific methodology of sort of testing and experimentation and falsification of hypotheses and communication with other experts who are doing similar work in the field rather than a methodology of, you know, just make some inferences and then, you know, claim that that's absolutely true. So until such time as I've been presented with better evidence, I'm going to go with the theory of evolution, which at this stage is one of the pillars of modern medicine. Thank you. Thank you, muted, Amy. And thank you all for watching. I always do that. It's the double tap. Thank you to Amy and Church of Entropy and, of course, James for letting me on here. It's been an absolute blast. And I believe both Amy, you and Jen are muted. No, it's the Zoom meeting. It is. As long as she all transitions. I can't hear Amy. I'm not muted right now. I just checked. No, it's the Zoom call. I can see the mute is on the Zoom call. Should I stop the screen? There you go. Yes. Thank you so very much, Mark, as the screen share. I love. Don't even worry about the screen share. Seriously, don't even worry about it. It looks like an absolute train wreck, but I honestly love it. And don't even worry about changing it to something that looks good. So if anyone wants to see the actual model, you can see it not looking like a train wreck on my channel after. But yeah, it's some evidence requires a certain standard of axioms. You have to accept the axioms to get proof, quote unquote, or evidence in support of more accurately, right? So the theory goes beyond that because it's telling us not just what's happening, but also how to frame what's happening. So you can't, I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say that you can't prove these metaphysical things. These metaphysical assertions and decisions are. The ground of proof. So you're asking for proof. Like you're basically asking why you can't drive the engine of a car. You can't drive the engine of a car mark because you drive a car, but you need an engine in a car. Don't you? To drive it. So there's never going to be proof on that level. The argument is basically this is a more efficient means of getting to what you could call proof because it accords with what's been used traditionally. And I'm actually considering to keep these things as simple as possible. Informationally, though, there is this big initial. Learning curve. Once you get it, it's there and you can just draw it at any time you want. So hopefully this diagram is a little bit of an. Insight as to how the model works. Yes, you have to look at reality. But once you transcend reality, you can find the. What are called margas of things, the root. And the openings and everything basically functions on that basic. Premise, which is why on the bottom right talks about the way of mind. So we can go into that more in the after show. And I think do have it will be joining. So please check us out. Church of entropy. Thanks again. Sorry for the long answer. Thank you so very much, Jen. And that's right. You can both check out the after show either on Jen's channel or at the modern day debate discord. But I do want to thank you all for joining us out here on modern day debate. Katz and all we are a neutral platform welcoming everybody from all walks of life. If you're looking for even more juicy debates, don't forget to like and subscribe, including tonight's debate on evolution on trial. I want to thank both of our interlocutors, Jen and Mark for joining us tonight. And if you liked anything that either of our guests said tonight, you can see their links in the description or the chat. Go out and check that out, ladies and gentlemen. With that, I am Amy Newman with modern day debate, and we hope you continue having great conversations, discussions, and debates. Good night, everybody. Good night. Thanks for having me. Are we done? Are we up? Sorry, I can't hear you. I can't hear you if you're talking.