 Good evening everybody. Welcome to another exciting episode or debate of modern day debate tonight Our topic is evolution on trial. We got a 2v2 tonight, and we're gonna start with our Skeptic side. I believe Sal has volunteered to go first So Sal the floor is all yours Thank you is Are my slides up? Screenshared, I'd like to thank the hosts and moderators and participants in this discussion I'm a molecular biophysics researcher, and I've recently been accepted into a doctoral program in biomolecular engineering I started off as an engineer most of my career and I went off the study Biology at this school and one of the professors at my school was Dr. Cy Gart who is on the opposing side He was a professor there was a wonderful school, and I was a student there I am so deeply honored to share this discussion with him. We probably have Not complete polar opposites, but we're certainly on opposite sides of this discussion I would like to also mention. He's a brother in Christ and it means something to me As I'm also a Christian. He has this book that Gives his journey from atheism to faith and I highly recommend it his book. So Part of this discussion really is aimed at theistic evolutionist. I used to be a theistic evolutionist so With that aside, what do I consider great scientific theories? Here are the examples these fundamental laws of nature or scientific theories and I Think by comparison You know, these are the laws of physics by comparison. This is what Jerry Coyne said He was the author of why evolution is true He said in science is pecking order evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom far closer to the pseudoscience of phrenology than to physics my line of argumentation here is It's been claimed that natural selection has built out the complexity the complexity of life And it turns out and Dawkins wrote this book the blind watchmaker But that has been falsified on so many levels especially recently in light of theoretical studies and experimental evidence and The second line is the lack of common ancestry and major protein architectures and There's a quote from Erin raw. I kind of schooled him on that and now he's repeating what I taught him So I worked for Don dr. John Sanford. He was a geneticist and atheists turn Christian turn creationist and He published a peer-reviewed article in the journal mathematical biology that destroyed Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection Dawkins was just Gushing over that but it turned out to be false. I'm happy to report that I joined John Sanford and William Basner. We published in springer nature reference work that is now on university shells. We passed peer review amazingly and The book by the way is for fifteen hundred dollars. You can get it for 18 819 at Walmart, but I don't get a dime if you buy it. So as well meaning as you are I'd suggest you buy size book instead So what is the problem with natural selection? I'm just going to give you some these are recent relatively recent headlines Evolution by gene loss and it says here many examples support the idea that gene loss can be an adaptive evolutionary force And there's one selection driven gene loss in bacteria and then this one genome reduction genome reduction is loss of genes It's the dominant mode of evolution and this one in Lensky's experiments Genomes decayed despite sustained fitness gains. This is showing that natural selection does not work as advertised We have books like survival of the sickest. There's also this Forgotten work by area and lute and luent in the talk about the confusions of fitness that shows it's an empty concept also Evolution does not proceed the way Dawkins envisioned. This is proven By work by Scott Minnick I interviewed him on my channel It couldn't even resolve five measly nucleotides out of a million So how's it going to build a genome natural selection did not work as advertised even after 80,000 generations It could not even reconstruct a slightly damaged gene. And why is this this is like a hiker who? Kind of walking along and trying to hike and he decides to just dump his equipment You know his food his provisions his winter gear so he can move faster And that's why evolution by way of analogy why it loses genes That's how selection works. It only it's short-sighted only works. It focuses only on the immediate Maybe in the discussion we can cover why proteins do not have a common ancestor but briefly Let me just show you two different proteins on the left is collagen on the right is zinc finger You could see there For those of you who can read amino acids of proteins that there's no way that this has a common ancestor it also shows the difficulty then of Evolving one protein to another if you're going to make a major change to something that's non-homologous So if it doesn't have a common ancestor, they just sort of popped out of there, especially ones that are extremely complex Um And we can go into this in the discussion. So what's you know, I wanted to point out that I did a Paper published also an Oxford University Press that talks about the similarity the reason for it Life is optimized for scientific discovery. That's why we have patterns of similarity and nested hierarchies I look forward to discussing This more and I yield my Time to Jen. Thank you Thanks Sal Justin and my opponents dr. Cyan Amy As well as all the audience for being here This evening I will share my Presentation Welcome to the evolution debate Happy to be here I'm Jen Shar for those of you. You don't know me. I have an honors degree in physics math from the University of Ottawa I worked as a tutor for science language and math for great number of years and then worked in audio video comparison analysis specifically large language models for Or the precursors to large language models for automatic speaker recognition Also worked as a captionist for deaf and hearing impaired students Now I mostly Get into debates on the internet when I'm not teaching about physics and non-dualist philosophy So overview of my presentation. I'll give an introduction to me, which I've already done And then I'll follow it up with some critiques of evolution How it's almost always a modern Bailey fallacy when we're presented with the arguments as to when we're told what we should believe about how Phenotypic Speciation has happened in history. We've got unjustified presuppositions abounding those models and evidence against I'm also going to mention some evidence against the current evolutionary trees And then if I have time I'm going to get into an alternate model that gives you all the It explains all the data plus gives a lot more insight and predictions So just to make sure how much time do I have left? Four and a half minutes. Great. So what's Martin Bailey? That's when you have something sane sounding but then all these uh, you know trappings that you try to Sweep in under the door So the mott is organisms change over time. Yeah, I don't know that anyone would disagree with that But then we have other assertions like genes deterring behavior genetic changes incremental dna comes from RNA and bottom up my biomechanics where we're expected to believe that My ancestor is a single celled organism so Evolution change inheritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations That's unfalsifiable because if we can demonstrate it with brassica turning into broccoli, for example, so the question is Is that change actually responsible for phenotypic variability? Okay, so let's before we get into that have a look at all the presuppositions Clogging this assertion one matter in particular genetic matter drives evolutionary change two Changes are incremental three organisms with similar phenotypes have a common ancestor for evolution isn't toward or away from anything We have a lot of causes for skepticism We have a lot of evidence for punctuated equilibrium, which suggests that changes are actually not gradual but fast Uh, no evidence for non-dna base life even though they've tried to replicate RNA base life And it just reverted to dna base life because there's something in those four and four is an important number base pairs that constrains life to itself We don't have a model for a biogenesis a biogenesis. We can't even verify the domain of this model My biggest issue is how does the brain come about from a non-brain organ? I am expected to take this on what amounts to face No model essentially for anything Not even something as simple as the spiral shape of an operculum Now if I was going to validate a model at least the very least I would want it to validate something as obvious as Or simple rather as this shape Can't do it just ends up being an explanation of tree drawings as my debate partner has said in the past According to the procure model There's a last universal common ancestor which disperses into multiple similar forms across disparate geographic locations however Evidence cast out on this view and this is material evidence How does that one did how does evolution actually work real quick how much time do I've left? Oh dang I wish I had more anyway. I have my alternative model of evolution, but just to skip ahead We want to look at two examples Which is the angler fish and the human So the angler fish is at the end of the intelligence Spectrum, but it has a lot of consciousness because it has all that light in its head So the darkness of the cave is the determining factor For the angler fish and according to lisciatelli's principle All these determining factors are minimized through motion thermodynamic motion So that's where we start off low consciousness And these organisms create an energy differential in excess of available energy e.g that light That's just a metaphor so the light and the angler fish is a metaphor for all the energy stored up in these low intelligence organisms and then you get predation to move push back against this differential and predation selects for intelligence because it's a competitive activity And this Intelligence then becomes another determining factor the species will Oh, thanks species will spontaneously cluster into niches based on intelligence And then you get colonization based on these determining factors of intelligence And then the intelligence starts to determine itself because it is its own competitive factor to varying degrees I have an alternate model of evolution where everything descends from a single form And the degree of evolution is just the degree of deviation from this form So if we want to get into it we can I'll just wrap it up. I won't read everything on the slide, but I'll just say real quick at least my model can account for the spiral motion that you see In my little example from earlier If I can pull it up the operculum. So thanks so much for listening. Sorry. That was a little rushed Uh, I'll kick it over to the other side to hear the rebuttal. Thank you so much for your attention All right. Thank you very much. Jen. No, that was well done um before we get on to the Other side. Oh the names got moved around here somehow That's not cool Who's going for a sigh or Amy on the other side? Hey, it looks like I'm good with either one. Yeah Okay, so I'm not going to rearrange the names yet because they're probably just getting messed up with the next screen share But in the meantime, you guys can enjoy your new identities for 15 seconds while I tell everybody to hit that like and subscribe button for us and Go ahead and start getting those super chats in I'm already Jotting them down and at the end we will start asking our debaters some questions. Um So Si go ahead to the floor is all yours Okay, um I'm gonna well. I guess I'm supposed to introduce myself. I'm just going to take a second for that uh, I'm a phd in biochemistry and uh Despite what sal said I I don't think I can take much credit for his success But anyway, I appreciate his comments and uh his plugging of my book. That's great um I think it might be worthwhile saying that uh In the two opening talks that I heard from the other side There was only a few things that I disagreed with which may be very shocking and It might be upsetting for people who want who are hoping to find a really, you know Deep down and dirty debate I think this is going to end up being more of a discussion Which is what I like anyway and which is what I'd usually try to do with debates if possible Let me just start by saying, you know, we have to define what evolution is and there are many definitions and some of them are variations of this one Which is the actual accepted scientific definition of evolution And that is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time And this change is driven by what we call fitness For alternative alleles, which we call p and q and there's even an equation that can describe this Sal showed another equation, which is very similar to this one. It one comes from the other But my point of showing this is that This is this is very different. This definition is very different from what lots of people think that evolution is and so Really, what's important to know here is what evolution is not And I have lots of slides showing what evolution is not. I'm going to skip those And only talk about one in particular and this is really an important one Evolution is not about the origin of life. In fact, there are no actual Scientists doing evolutionary work who talk about the evolution Sorry, talk about the origin of life Origin of life is a separate field both in science and in philosophy and and even in religion But it is not connected to evolution. Darwin didn't connect it. Dawkins doesn't connect it No, no actual evolutionary biologist Discusses origin of life in the context of evolutionary theory Uh, in fact, uh Oh, yeah, there it is. Okay What when we talk about evolution, we don't start at the beginning which is the origin of life At the first cell for example, there's something that happened between whenever There was some kind of a cell And a cell which is very complex already and that we call the last universal common ancestor Evolutionary theory as Sal mentioned does propose that this Luca Gives birth to everything else eventually with a great deal of time But what came before Luca is not subject for inquiry to evolution and the reason is that you need evolution to get Some of the prospect some of the I'm sorry You cannot use evolution to get some of the mechanisms in this cell because You need those mechanisms for evolution to work and that includes replication the dna genetic code many other things So since you need those things for evolution to work, you can't invoke evolution to get here What evolution does do is describes a theory by which you get all the rest of life And I tend to also make a red line here between the rest of life in humans because and this is a matter of faith Not a matter of science. I believe that humans are partially a product of evolution, but partially something much more Now I want to show this vial of genetic tree because it's it's very important. It shows cats different kinds of cats evolving into different species of cats such as small cats which include the you know house cats And panthers and lions and tigers and all the all the kinds of cats that we know of The important part about this slide is it came from answers and genesis The one of the leading creationist organizations in the us And what what they say is that not every created kind of cat made it To the arc made it pass the flood The ones that did survive then evolved through natural selection actually into the various species we see today now It's it's not exactly the same evolutionary principle that evolutionists and biologists use. There are some big differences. Sal mentioned loss of genetic material that's stressed mostly in this theory But the point that I'm making is that everybody agrees that evolution occurs through natural selection at some point And what the difference is is that when creations talk about a kind They're starting at the level of the family and families then give rise to genus and genus gives rise to species species would be for example The lion or the tiger or the cat genus is a group of those But if you accept this pathway The only difference between that and what biologists talk about is that there are other groups that go further back until you have all animals For example the kingdom of animals Which then give rise to phyla classes orders and then families So again, the differences. I I believe the difference is fairly minor So one of the big arguments that's always made is that many people and I I would like to ask Sal and Jen if they would agree with this That micro evolution has not been controversial at all that creationists agree that micro evolution, which is the adaptation of the fittest the leels by mutation Is something that is acceptable now what Okay, so I'll just leave that on and stop Thank you so much Sal um Amy it's your turn. Do you got a screen share as well or are you just going for it? I do not and I'm just going to I am a little bit spicier. However, I do want to just say that it has been lovely just seeing In the pre-debate just meeting for the second time the doctor and I know Sal and Jen very well and they are both lovely individuals With that being said Hello, my name is Amy Newman. I am a professor of information systems a teacher a counter-apologist and a comedian Hated by the word. I also do fun skeptic-based fun content with my co-host James W at youtube.com slash Amy Newman Evolution on trial Though not on trial in the scientific community Evolution is the backbone of modern biology and has been for a hundred plus years now Though let's not get ahead of ourselves. What does evolution even mean? Simply put the populations of genes have random mutations and that the environment Naturally selects for them these two facts are what make up the theory of evolution And I mean both of those words because I often hear the phrase That's just a theory Which if true would make the sentence that's just the theory of gravity Seem valid A theory is a framework of facts that explain a phenomena like gravity evolution or the germ theory of disease In fact evolution has come a long way since Darwin first wrote origin of species What began with Charles comparing different species of finches has become a massive collection Where we now have millions upon millions of fossils within the fossil record And within these geological columns we find species being more complex at the top And slowly becoming simpler the further we dig Which is what we would expect to find from evolving organisms We also have the genetic record We understand how genes allow us to mix and match with members of our species So that we can create new combinations new humans Our utilization of genetics also enables us to the same thing with pea pods corn And other organisms that have a fast turnover time Allowing us to make crops like never before like the banana But we have artificially changed so that it is friendlier to our taste buds Okay, but that's artificial So how do genes Randomly mutating drive change We can think of this by thinking of two different butterflies Each one has a random mutation one for blue one for green None of them pick their color But the green butterflies as they land on the green leaves Fade into the background and the blue butterflies almost become Target practice for birds One by one The blue butterflies in this forest disappear But the green butterflies are all that is left This is evolution in action natural selection in action So then we have to ask evolution on trial If evolution is a scientific fact then Where is this trial exactly taking place? And that would be the hall of religion With the correlation being that the more fundamentalist a person is The less of a chance that they will accept evolution as the answer for the diversity of life To the point where fundamentalists have failed to get creationism taught in public schools twice At least in the united states though there is hope because alternatively Many religious people find ways to make their religion and science work They're fine with a 4.5 billion year old earth with humans evolving over 100 000 years ago Heck we have tools of other homitives using Using these older than 100 000 years Thus the religious people That can make these two coincide They're the ones on my side It's only the people who seem to doubt long periods of time that struggle to accept evolution And even evolution Ask them yourselves. Do you believe in evolution? If they say no ask them. Do you believe in microevolution? And you'll surprisingly often hear them say Yes Thus they do accept some evolution Diet coke is still coke Time is not magic. It's part of life and cosmology stars also take longer periods of time Than our own to form yet we know how they do Finally my joke is that many of the detractors of evolution seem to be expecting what I call Pokemon evolution They're waiting for a smaller animal to begin glowing And after a few minutes of postulating They grow dramatically in size to an entirely different organism Right before our eyes But this is not how evolution works Which is slow gradually through each successive and successful generation Each organism sharing a common ancestry That we call the tree of life Thank you All right. Thank you. Amy So we're about to enter into the back and forth discussion before we do that once again, want to remind everybody to Hit that subscribe button modern day debate sitting at a healthy 158,000 subscribers over 30,000 of those Very recently actually so thank you already for all the support you guys Give us but right now we've got almost we're just knocking on 300 live viewers and only 30 likes So i'm i'm i'm pleading with you. Please Just just a couple more Amy let me ask you did you hit the like button yet? I am doing so right now. I knew one of you was missing All right, so we're gonna go into our 50 minute discussion I'll be sitting here quietly listening carefully. Hopefully you guys can avoid any dog piles Um or insults, which is pretty much. I'm sure that's not gonna happen So the floor belongs to all four of you. Have fun Someone needs to to go first um, I I might can I do that and maybe share my screen a little and show a couple more slides. Is that all right? Um, I don't have any objections. Okay. No objection then I will take that as a yes All right um Oh, wait, okay so I was here. I'm going to skip all this. Um The thing I think I think what's important to say here is that uh When we were talking about what evolution is We often neglect the fact that evolution the theory of evolution Is has been changing drastically over time And that's normal in any science until one gets to the point where we have a set of mathematical laws which really Kind of as as uh as sal showed in his first slide when physics came up with those laws That was a place where we could start from and and hang our hat on Evolution doesn't have that yet And it's not a complete theory But people in the field are working on completing it and there have been huge numbers of Things that have come out in evolution in recent years That most people don't talk about because many people don't know about them So for example, symbiogenesis is a mechanism of evolution where one cell grabs another one like a mitochondria and that that happens very quickly. It doesn't follow the normal Darwinian slow change There are transposon insertions The third one is fascinating because it's only come out in the last couple of years cognition based evolution Which is exactly as wild as it sounds in other words. There's now a theory That many creatures including bacteria and other animals Actually have cognition not just humans and and large animals And they actually Can make some decisions About how they're going to evolve. I know that sounds insane, but it is actually science And that takes away the idea that all changes Is random we used to think that but there's now a lot of evidence about non random mutations Horizontal gene transfer whole genome duplication And I said non random these are other these are other Mechanisms there's something called the extended evolutionary synthesis. I won't go down the the list here but all kinds of new mechanisms of being proposed for how evolution works And uh, they're since Darwin since the the neo darwinian Uh synthesis was the main area or the main theory of evolution Decades ago. We now have neutral theory. We have punctuated equilibrium We have conversions showing that evolution has a direction Because many different lines of evolution end up with the same solutions niche selection where evolution goes back and forth with the environment epigenetics is a huge field And finally at the bottom something I'm very interested in is the role of teleology and agency along with cognition and evolution And teleology and agency were originally excluded From any concept in biology. It was considered to be non scientific. You don't have purpose That doesn't occur in other sciences, but in biology. It's clearly there Now I should say that some of this might sound as if it's uh, it's it's kind of um You know reflective of what Amy was saying about religion Uh, but most of this work is being done by non-theists because what has happened in evolutionary biology Is that we've come across a lot of obstacles which you can't get past using just chemistry and physics And so we need new ideas. We need new concepts of how to think about How biology works and how evolution works and here are some of the questions that have We have gotten some answers to now. Some of these are controversial, but there's peer-reviewed published literature again mostly from non-theists that give these answers So the production of genetic variation is not always totally random Sometimes it's not random. There's actually a purpose to the to the to the mutation Are all possible evolutionary pathways possible? In other words can As Stephen Gould said if we wind back the clock will we get a totally different result? No, Simon Conway Morris has shown that there is a convergent evolution There's convergence which shows that evolution follows specific pathways and directions And that means there is a direction for evolution Teleology is not ruled out there can be purposes in evolution And cells can help determine their own evolutionary path The last question does God intervene in the evolutionary process? I don't have an answer because we're not discussing that today But that is another question that can come up. So I wanted to mention that This is the book that Sal mentioned and I have a new book coming out in about two months called science and faith and harmony, but again That's just promotion is not to do anything with the the topic at hand So I wanted to show all that because A lot of what I showed Answers some of the points that both Cal and Jen have made and that is Sometimes people who argue against evolution Are arguing against the evolution of your grandfather or your father or, you know, maybe your Uncle's a slightly older brother. I mean, it's not the car necessarily always the current evolutionary ideas Is there a consensus yet? No We still have Jerry coin and Richard Dawkins who was stuck on the neo Darwinian synthesis But they are becoming in the minority and some of these New ideas are extremely exciting scientifically biologically And I think evolutionary theory is in an incredibly exciting place right now We don't know what's going to end up, but I I wanted to say that for the purpose of discussion And I'll stop Thank you, sigh. I was wondering if I uh, unless Amy or Jen have any Objections, I'd like to finish some thoughts that I played out in my opening statement Um, thank you so Well, if we're all gonna have extra time for opening statements like uh, like, you know It's an open discussion as far as I'm concerned you guys should Be discussing Yeah, I mean, it's not much of a discussion just to have a monologue and that there was no question And there's nothing to respond to so I'd rather have it be an actual debate Well, I do have I do have something to object to Um First off evolutionary biology is not the backbone of biology um in my I showed some of these peer-reviewed papers They're senior biologists They're creationists so you don't need it. However, you can't do even neuroscience biology without electromagnetism So we talk about what theories are dispensable. You're not going to be able to dispense with the laws of physics Which I will show here These are the accepted laws And these are the ones I had to learn When I was studying, um Physics at Johns Hopkins These are the form of real theories. They're mathematical. They've been proven experimentally um Si I I totally respect his desire to see the mathematician of evolutionary biology, but I I don't think it can be done and it's kind of complicated to explain why but actually the laws of physics are actually very information poor uh The biology is actually information rich You could see the laws of physics just stated on a Like almost an index card. These are the these represent five major areas of physics most so much in modern technology Just rests on this can fit on one page Whereas biology is so rich. It can't be algorithmically compressed and that's what I think And we talk about change it's well every everyone's going to agree that things can change So I mean even a creationist the young earth young life creations like like myself could be said to believe in change But it doesn't you know, it's the nature of change. I'm saying that experimentally We're seeing the nature of change being gene loss. That's devastating There's another problem of what can't evolve in small gradual increments And this is something I had to school Aaron raw and it's just so funny. I don't know he might have had I don't know what he was smoking or drinking when he wrote me. He said proteins do not have an effing common ancestor It's like well, that's exactly what I was trying to tell you so this was a public exchange and I'm gonna Follow up on that just a little bit for the audience's sake. This is We have something called collagen And it's a beauty product our bones are made of collagen with that's been calcified And that's the spelling of the collagen protein there. These are the amino acids and collagen collagen one And there's a striking pattern. You could see all the g residues the glycines every third I've highlighted in red and you could see it's a non random pattern Likewise, we could do the same for the human zinc finger protein, which is probably involved in as a transcription factor Uh, it's one third the size of a collagen and it has a very distinctive pattern with the cysteines and histidines That's where the zinc ion binds each of those rows Here is a separate zinc finger and it can interact with the dna Um, this has to be this has to be very carefully architected to work And uh, there are a variety of higher order patterns in terms of the amino acids But there's no way that you can gradually evolve one to the other Or uh, hypothetically, what would the common ancestor be where you could incrementally build one? It's just not going to happen and I could describe that with several other proteins And you know, I don't think Aaron Rodley under understood the Appreciated the difficulty he was just kind of repeating what I taught him um Here a variety of proteins you could see the shapes are different um on the left is a zinc, you know Conceptual rendering of the zinc finger. This is a homo hexameric helicase This is a potassium ion channel. This is a homodinomeric taupe isomerase a homodinomeric insulin receptor and a heterotrimeric collagen They're differently shaped. There's no gradual transition So this would be better represented as a orchard rather than a universal tree and this is known Even evolutionary biologists will agree with me. How difficult is it to make a protein that functions? Well It's just like the parts of a car. Uh, it's the way they're shaped in the way they interact This is from bruce albert's, uh, baby cell book which I studied. Um It's a beautiful book you could see how Two proteins here when they interact and bind they have to get their charges aligned. This is not trivial to evolve this And there's also a geometry problem. How do you evolve the nut into a bolt or a bolt into a nut by gradual steps? Or you know, here's a kid's toy, but I could represent this also It looks very much like like this this this protein in all its domains um So this is why it's very hard to have gradual evolution at the protein family level from one major family to another it just doesn't happen and um Conceptually, you know, uh, you don't have one part of a car that can evolve into like a gas tank a A top, you know a wheel a piston a spark plug a radiator and a battery. It's the same thing at the biological level um at the molecular protein level Although organismally we might say hey, you know, uh For the sake of arguing we could say they all evolved from one Common conceptual ancestor from one organism, but the parts certainly didn't evolve from each other and so, um That would be my objection to What amy says that you can have these little micro evolutions building up to to create these big jumps These are big jumps that even I've asked dr. Dan stern cardinal I said do you believe all proteins came from a common ancestor? He said no I'm like, don't you see a problem there? Well, if I could just answer that quickly, uh Remember what I said was that we don't talk about the origin of life with evolution and luka already has those protein Different protein families in it. We don't know how that got there, but that's not an argument against evolution That's an argument against abiogenesis. Um Uh the collagen protein is late. This is uh, uh, metazones have collagen That is uh, that would be yeah, and so there is a problem of what we call orphan genes And that is an or taxonomically rigid. This is this is a serious one and then also for, um The zinc finger the eukaryotic zinc fingers is is fairly unique So, um, you know right now I could I only have a handful of these But I I would expect as we start to explore the orphan gene space is it's going to explode um Well, I mean, but there there is a whole field in new gene developments including orphan genes. So Uh, it it's it's not impossible to get Genes that produce totally new proteins and that's been documented in several cases Uh, but the the families that you presented were there We assume early because then they gave rise to many others. There are new ones as well as you know As life proceeds, but anyway, it's it's a minor point Can I also just go back to? overwhelming consensus in the scientific community among scientists that evolution Is once again, I use the backbone because it is what most What we use it is an alignment the same like gravity We use within physics today evolution is something that we use within biology today and I there are creation biologists or biologists that are creationists but I don't See many alternatives. I know that gen presented a it was talking about at least a a alternative But I always find it odd because It makes sense using more time using 4.5 billion years and so I always It's always confusing to me why They say leaps of time because the alternative always should be one giant leap Well, I guess a question is well my question to be is there an alternative model that works I was almost tagging in Jen if you wanted to well for yeah, I'm just I I guess just about Like I mean I just to address what you said about consensus. I mean is it I mean is it justified to appeal the consensus for something being correct Are we justified to believe evolution is correct because there exists a consensus And I would say no because historically there have been tons of consensus that has been wrong So I would say if anything Consensus is actually evidence against a position being correct So I don't see the relevance, but again, I think it basically comes down to like Doctors I made all these concessions. So at the end of the day, what is The theory really telling us that we didn't already know Because the theory is supposed to make verifiable predictions. Like if this model were able to predict any of the things that Dr. Seyd listed had been observed through science that might have more credence But it doesn't appear that this model is more than a description It explains the diversity of life. It explains how different organisms came about. I agree with the doctor It has nothing to do with a biogenesis. We're dealing with a very specific thing We can argue What was that spark whether it was supernatural or natural? But it seems to be where life is evolution occurs Yeah, I mean, you know when when uh when einstein discovered the theory of relativity That surpassed newton's theories, but it didn't disprove them. In other words the newtonian theory of Uh of gravity is still true. That law still works But on top of that we now have a much more sophisticated model, which is general relativity The same thing is true for what I was talking about in evolution None of those new ideas You know discard the the basic Uh model of evolutionary activity, which is the model is supposed to offer the mechanism by which those effects happen Yes, it doesn't do well It did and it the problem with the model was it was very restrictive because the the previous model was What's now called neo darwinism? And the modern synthesis that model restricted everything to slow Random changes in mutations for variation And that model is not correct. It's nobody believes that's true. Nobody in the scientific field Uh, there's been too many exceptions to it. So what's happened is and sal has a good point by the way it's very hard to come up with a mathematical algorithm for evolution because it is so complicated biology is so complicated That will never I don't think anyone thinks we're ever going to find a simple physics type theory that's going to explain it all And and the fact that biology is so complicated means that we have to be expansive We can't restrict mechanisms to one thing or another And I think this is this is the strength of science science moves forward by finding new things and by discarding Theories which didn't work which don't explain everything and that's what's happening in the field of evolution Finally now for a long time Evolution was stuck because people were ideologically bound To the idea of random pure dywinian theory That's over that's gone away And there's all kinds of amazing discoveries being made in the field Which is we're not there yet But it's it's it's well they have an abandon the basic tenets of the model which is that the genes drive the changes so Actually, I think we have raised good cause to be skeptical of this model given that it's basically falsified at this point Well, it's not falsified, but you know, you've made some good points And there are there are many sides. I mean Dennis noble is is a brilliant physiologist in the uk who has been hammering the point That we're not all every organism is not a slave to its genes There are other ways that cells control themselves besides genetics. So that also sounds like heresy And you know, he's had some great debates with Dawkins on this This is nothing to do with religion by the way. Okay. This is this is this is science And yeah, it's it's messy right now and you could say that the original model has been overturned but Only to the point for example that general relativity for example goes further than than newtonian theory, but the general idea of natural selection Slow change of populations with time That's not going anywhere. And as I showed Even creationists agree that that kind of evolutionary change happens so you know It's not much of a there really isn't that much to debate. That's my bottom line I don't think it's worth debating evolution because it's not an important issue either scientifically or culturally um And it's so hard to be confrontational with sigh because I just love the guy to death And so I'm just going to have to kind of pick on something Not not because I like doing this but it does also relate to my professional work I was hoping you could show that slide where you showed the The allele frequency change. This is actually pretty central to the discussion of mechanism You mean the delta p? Yes. Yes So I'll explain it to this is where this is and I'm gonna Anyone who wants this if they want a torturous paper That will really show them the difficulty. I'll mention it and you know, as I said, this is You know, I love science so much. It's actually really hard to make this a debate Let's have a discussion here. So delta p is the change in A particular allele The alias that are represent represented the frequency by p and another allele by q So like let's just say it's red and green. I don't know some allele hypothetically the w's represent Oh, my goodness. I'm going to Yes fitness. Thank you. So fitness here is You could take that down. I want I just wanted to show that. Okay. Thank you. See, uh, I just kind of embarrassed myself there Professor Gart here sent me a right But one thing that we found out. So if you look at ario and lundtons, I just briefly flashed that slide in my presentation He talks about fitness confusions so fitness in the population genetic sense is uh just the The reproductive efficiency we usually term it in terms of like, okay, you know, how many rabbits does this allele make and or You know, how how reproductively? Abundant successful is it relative to another allele? and so the problem with that is Lundtons showed all these cases where it starts to become kind of really messy And I would highly recommend Reading that I'm going to read a summary by andreus vagner that talks about why this is problematic And it's also one way you can actually show that uh fissures fundamental theorem of natural selection is totally irrelevant It may be mathematically sound, but it doesn't describe Anything of worth and I'm sorry to say that because I like fissure. So let me just show this this is Andreus vagner commenting. It's a nice summary of what luenton said in his torturous paper And uh, I'll show I'll show the reference shortly, but it says here um First how can we determine whether a mutation does not affect fitness Beyond the common place that fitness means the ability to survive and reproduce Fitness is difficult to define properly and nearly impossible to measure rigorously And I'm going To just skip down Taken together these difficulties mean that an unassailable measurement of any organism's fitness does not in practice exist An unassailable measurement of any organism's fitness in does in practice not exist This is very difficult for a scientific theory if it cannot define clearly if it cannot measure In physics, you have four major quantities If you can't define it, you could at least measure it that'd be time length charge and mass from all that all the other Measurements all the units of physics are built. It's you know, it's I can I can I can take um Like say a massive one kilogram other scientists around the world can replicate it and say, yeah, I made the same measurement The thing that luenton found out is fitness is not an inherent property of the organism It's too dependent on the environment and one thing that really bothered him is density dependent selection He said if I just change the initial density, it changes the fitness numbers those w's And he got to the point. He said he totally uh, he said, you know, this is a complication Evolutionary theory that he left without resolution. He listed four complications of evolutionary theory And that was the major one and this is the one that um Andrius Fogner is focusing on so the problem is this is why you get these very difficult statements where it says um Genomes decay despite sustained fitness gains That was Richard Lensky's paper. He made himself the middle author. Maybe he was embarrassed. I don't know This is very problematic if you have a theory that can't measure its most fundamental quantities or find them and um worse yet is when you start losing genes If you're gonna build an eye, you know Darwin said he Origin of species chapter six organs of extreme perfection and complication It doesn't serve the theory well if it's losing If most the majority of our experiments are showing gene loss under extreme selection or even moderate selection Or population bottlenecks. This is not this is not um positive Encouraging the theory of natural selection is going to work as advertised. That's the problem I'm not saying that natural selection or whatever we call it doesn't you know, I'm not saying it doesn't exist But it doesn't work as advertised. That's the fundamental problem Do you concede that uh fitness is not well-defined? Either Cy or Amy whoever I absolutely agree with that. Uh fitness is in fact, I've published this um Fitness is a tautology and that means it's defined as the um It's it's measured as the num that the the numbers individuals with a specific gene that survive And then they have a fitness. So what basically fitness is saying is That the fitness the fittest people or the fittest organisms individuals are those that survive the best Which is the definition. So it's It's basically a tautology, but Here's one thing about tautologies. They're always true by definition so even though but it's absolutely what what what Sal said and your question Is correct. Um that Uh, there's no question that the reason we don't have a good mathematical rigorous model for evolution is because we cannot measure Independently that Parameter of fitness, which is what everything depends on And that's the reason that the evolutionary theory is incomplete Now what do we do about that? Well, it doesn't mean that the process doesn't work The process is still working And there is such a thing as fitness. I mean a bird with a better eyesight is has more fitness It's going to eat better. It's going to survive better. So that's true But it but the the lack of ability to define that parameter I agree is a major weakness of evolutionary theory. It's why we don't have A mathematical law of evolution what I show you can't just equate the sensitivity of organs to fitness because sometimes sensitivity is maladaptive Yeah, exactly that that's my point If we could equate it if we could say a bigger Whatever a bigger muscle means you have you have more fitness. We'd be all set But we can't say that for exactly the reason you said So we that we're not done. I mean we we're not at the point where we can consider evolutionary theory to be at the level of other theories That have had mathematical demonstration, but those are always not in biology biology is separate I I I tend to believe as a bio as a biochemist as a biologist that We have to do something that the physicists did and the chemists did we have not yet been able to do it Which is to Make it clear that biology is its own science with its own very weird rules and ways of operating That go beyond chemistry and physics and we don't know how to do that yet But that doesn't mean evolution is false evolution still happens. We just don't have The theoretical tools to turn it into a mathematical law, but I would say evolution Is about a sound as most other scientific theories we have right now about as equal as gravity as something in physics There's always things we're learning about gravity. There's always things that we're learning about theories That's the point of the theory is that they are these theoretical frameworks that we're always building on It's just there's nothing special about evolution. I think that would set it apart From other theories other than it's just foundational and has been accepted for hundreds of years But I just want to push back on things like genetic entropy not very well accepted within the Biological community. I know that john c sanford. That's kind of the thing that he is pushing It has not been accepted, you know, it could be that our genes are having some sort of entropy that are Making it go towards that direction But there's really no favorite towards certain amount of genes Or another just the fact that two of ours fused there's nothing seem to be special on it In fact, I'll just keep on being spicy just to go all the way keep on going back something I don't see Well, you know what before I bring up more points. Does anyone respond to that? Because I know that was sound. I don't want to tag in. Oh, yeah. Oh, you know, I'm gonna I worked for dr. Sanford for seven years. He hired me as an engineer former aerospace and defense I said dr. Sanford I have no biology. He said, oh, it's all right. You'll learn it So First off, uh, could I address one of size points about? Biology, I actually think That it's a noble thing to you know, we tend to believe what we understand can explain and model And I think the or just like the origin of life I think the origin of major complexities like proteins major protein families like collagen Or especially the taxonomically restricted genes that came up late quote unquote late In evolutionary history and I say that according to the evolutionary model people know I'm a young earth creationist Um, I think they may you know Can a scientist be at one point and say I think this is outside the realm of science Could there be things that we cannot explain with simply equations With experiments and repeatability. I'm I'm way beyond that point for biology. I commend sigh for his desire. It's You know, it's what makes a scientist. He wants to understand and comprehend And I think this could be a domain That is outside our comprehension or outside to reconstruct historically and that can be very frustrating So, you know Because I know sigh believes In miracles he believes in god, but you know, there's that Just even I have it we want to understand and explain it has nothing to do with You know being anti god. It's just like When we try to understand the world, it's nice that we can comprehend it We feel comfortable when we start to describe it to something we can't explain It's just not a satisfying feeling and a scientist does want to explain things that are testable And experiment but I I'm thinking that this is beyond it. So that's what I That's one point. I wanted to say I think it's a commend You know, you wouldn't be a scientist if you didn't want to be able to explain things If you kept wanting to appeal to the unexplainable for everything that doesn't work I compartmentalize that and I said the origin of major protein forms and complexity I think is going to be one that's outside of science um as far as fitness There has been a move and it's been in peer-reviewed literature David snook who's a distinguished professor of physics. I've had the privilege of interacting with him. He was on my youtube channel He is subject instead of luentin luentin said, you know We tended to find fitness as a single unit unitary scaler, which means just like a number So when you're seeing those w's and in the equations I presented those are just a single number Whereas when we try to say someone's physically fit what we do we look at their blood pressure their heart rate their You know their blood chemistry, you know the glucose levels the cholesterol, etc So when we evaluate most biological systems or engineered systems, we have multiple multiple criteria And and and David snow calls us figures of merit I think when we go away from fitness being a single unitary number, but then now look to figures of merit We'll see biology more clearly. And that's where the area of biophysics is big on They're seeing all these figures of merit like the optimization of the eyes It's not more there's a beautiful lecture called more perfect than we imagined um by Princeton physicist biophysicist william biolack you'll start to see kind of the merging of physics and biology and and kind of the abandoning of Reproductive success is a measure of fitness um I just wanted to throw that out now. Amy. I am so sorry, but I totally forgot I was going to address something you said if you could kind of just repeat a little bit I'm just real quick. I'm going to pop in real quick. Just to let everyone know We're about 15 minutes away from the infamous super chat section So if you've got a question in your mind for our debaters get your super chat in now I read them in priority order. So the first ones first serve On that note. Amy carry on I absolutely and thank you so much. And again, don't forget to like file subscribe And send in love to live chat. But yes, I am taking Loving potshots at genetic entropy as a concept because I think that It doesn't seem to matter What are our Number of chromosomes and things like that. It just seems to be whatever works for the environment okay, so there There is human genetic entropy and I was in a debate with evolutionary biologist dr. Dan stern cardinel And I asked in that debate. Can you name one prominent geneticist, especially when studies human heritable Diseases, can you name one that thinks our genome is improving? There's not one almost universally. They think That we are losing functionality in our genomes. There's gonna I could quote michael lynch respected national academy of scientists Evolutionary biologist and he's saying he he thinks our fitness Even using the evolutionary definition is on the decline. There's going to be loss of intelligence loss of You know mental capacity More mental illness increase in autism more heritable diseases That's partly because our genome is so complex when you have a complex system more things can go wrong You know like a hammer There's not a lot that can go wrong with a hammer But you have an airplane a lot can go wrong and a human being Is very complicated. They're just more things that can break And so that's one just for the human there's there's no one that would disagree with dr. Sanford that The human genomes deteriorating. They're just have different arguments as to the reason why But everyone's agreeing with him And when he gave his talk at the NIH in 2018 a lot of people were coming up to him And saying yeah, I'm seeing this in my work Epidemiologists came up to me and said yeah, we're seeing more early onset of cancer juvenile cancer So the empirical evidence is sadly there. And so this is a relevant topic This isn't you know, people are framing this as being a creationist thing But it's it's going to affect all of us now I could just respond to something Amy said because what you're bringing up that's sort of a prediction of evolution because most of the mutations are deleterious So, you know if these inferences were actually made properly, which they aren't uh, they would agree with you So Amy mentioned that She doesn't think that there's any essential difference between the physics models and the biology models But I would say that there is a difference because like take something with physics you're you've got an Picture so you just say the mass Makes the gravity happen. So that's a model where mass causes gravity We don't have a model like that. We can't say okay. Well, here's carbon. Let's go from carbon to Amino acid to protein to organs. There's nothing like that and so biology isn't I mean You're kind of right in the sense that other scientific disciplines make the same error So there's no scientific discipline. I can point you to say well, they didn't they got it right, you know physics Has less room for error, but they still make tons of presumptuous errors in their measurements But yeah, I'm not sure if that's clear or if you would disagree that Biology is more of the way that a modern biology understanding of missions more of a description whereas the physics models are Mechanical models that can make predictions that link together two different attributes of physicality for example mass and gravity So they would be considered more verifiable in the sense that you're looking at two different things Whereas we don't have that two separate things You can't go from carbon to amino acids to DNA under your model the difference isn't between Biology and physics what I'm trying to say is just what a theory Is supposed to be doing which is explaining a phenomena So it doesn't matter if it's a physics theory Like gravity or it's either of the two biological theories the theory of evolution or the theorem theory of disease If we could it could turn out that these small organisms Actually don't get us sick at all and we were all wrong. We were just reading the data completely differently and so it is collecting facts because a theory is still about this collection, but if we're putting in our true facts Then it should be pumping out an explanation for a what of this Okay, well if the theory is describing a phenomenon then by this definition a language is a theory language describes phenomena So why isn't language a scientific model? Because for something to be scientific it's more than just a description and that's where the skepticism is coming in I'm saying it doesn't rise to more than the level of description which is on par with the language which is Epistemically essentially indeterminate and language is based almost entirely on an agent whereas in science We're trying to remove the agent. We're Discovering things and we're saying that even without us. This is what would still be I understand the premise of science. I'm just saying the materialists aren't doing it properly I think they are But I still love you Well, you too. Sally, you want to jump in or side? Did you have a Well, I I I'm kind of on the fence between the two of you I mean, I You know, I I agree totally with Amy that evolution Is a theory which explains the observational facts that we see it's important to note That evolution could the whole idea of it could be easily overturned by just a few facts Uh in terms of how fossils relate to each other in terms of the dna that we you know, we look at the structures of genes and And dna and look at the relationship with each other if any of that didn't work perfectly Evolution would be dead and that's never happened every every time we look at fossils Every time we look at the genetics of two species that are related We see the evidence in the genes in the genomes And um, we if we didn't see that we throw it out, but that's never happened. So Amy's correct that we are definitely Talking about a theory which can't explain the observed facts But on the other hand, I also Hate I hate to do this, but I always do I also think Jane Jen has has a valid point that the theory of evolution is is definitely lacking in in many Aspects that we tend to associate with scientific theories and that's because of the nature of biology. It's You know, it's it's amazing that we have any kind of theory at all And what you have to realize about there were two things that made biology a science One was the theory of evolution and the other was mendelian inheritance Because actually what I believe what makes biology really important Are really different from everything else and what makes life so Unusual in the world in the universe Is inheritance? It's the ability of living organisms to self replicate which nothing else does in the universe And it's also the foundation of evolution because you don't have evolution without accurate self replication So in a way, I kind of agree that maybe we're looking at evolution as too basic a theory Maybe we should be looking at something else. I don't know. I mean, I'm not doing research on this I can't publish on this But it's just a feeling that I have and that's why I keep saying That it's kind of silly to argue about it because there's no question that evolution occurs And as I showed everybody kind of agrees with that The question is how good is the theory and again Everybody kind of agrees the theory is not very good. It's incomplete. It needs buttressing. It needs mathematics. It needs models But that's there. We're only talking about, you know, theoretical the theoretical Part of it. We're not talking about the reality The actual factual reality of how evolution Leads to diversity leads to different Body plans leads to different kinds of animals and plants Did I share my screen briefly? Yeah, so Yes, you mentioned that it was about replication that made life different there's kind of a viewpoint now in bruce alberts who wrote my cell biology book He calls life machines and evolutionary biologists by the way really hate it when we start to call about machines and to some extent Even people on the more spiritual side. They don't like reducing living things to machines but This was a 2006 article it says one third of the engineers at mit now work on biological problems According to graham c walker and mit biology professor yet. It can be challenging for Engineering and biology students to understand each other so Where do you get a lot of where there's a lot of pushback? Is between engineers and evolutionary biologists because engineers look at this as machines of life And I'm finding that more and more of the biology research teams. That's why I wanted to highlight this They are not drawing on evolutionary biologists to help them It's the engineers now because they have from a mindset of design and teleology Which I think you'd be friendly to sigh. Yes Where we look at it again, you know in terms of figures of merit and the construction of the parts and how they interact now It's just you know, one reason evolutionary biologists don't like that Is it's like well, you're kind of describing this as something designed and intelligently designed And I'm like well, what's the problem with that, you know So if you'd like to share your leanings about what I just said, I mean teleology I mean to me that says this looks intelligently designed I'll push back on Looking intelligently designed. I believe the intelligently designed things Come from the only branch that we know of so far That has agency, which is animals And so I would be There are various natural models of intelligent design. I know they always go into things like aliens and stuff like that To me that would even if so that would still be pushing the can down the line It appears to be That when you have organisms That there is this almost grinding down of Natural selection and other selection pressures. There is sexual selection There are Social selection there's artificial selection, which Is demonstratable going hands in hand with how we were able to manipulate genetics And so I think that Sal wasn't saying something wrong a second ago in that There are a lot of exciting new avenues that we should be looking at in biology But I think that stems from us learning something and that Ends up opening two new exciting new buckets for us to look at and that I think is science I'd like to ask my partner here Jen We are um have different views about the role of mental universe But uh, there's a there was an article in nature 2005 that talked about the mental universe When I showed those equations of physics one of them was quantum mechanics One interpretation of quantum mechanics says that there is an ultimate mind Um others can also interpret it alternatively is like the universe is mind In any case to me there is a designer and the complexity of biology the engineering we see in biology Um strikes me as being the result of a mind So I'm just kind of prompting Jen because he's I wanted to give her a chance to kind of share her views I'm not sure if I'm gonna have enough time to uh Really go into them too much because I think we're wrapping up like I don't know Should I fold this into some sort of a wrap-up speech or Yeah, go ahead Justin. Yeah, I'm fine. I don't think we're in any huge rush Things are going really well. So yeah, take the time. It's fine Well, yeah, so to answer your question just The basic sort of intuition for this is that the future is remembered into the present So we have memories And it's that it's the force of that memory that renders the future And when it when the future is rendered it becomes the present So that's true for all beings and like all living and non-living beings in fact So we want a little more information than that But that's your basic sort of metaphysical aesthetic if you will for understanding my mentalist worldview And then from there you proceed to okay, well How is the future being remembered into the present? So you take an example that's sort of a comically over exaggerated examples you want To bring out the contrast That's there, but it's not necessarily visible at all times So something like the angler fish Is a great example where it has a lot of consciousness and we could tell that because of all the light coming out of the Well, but it's had But that consciousness doesn't translate into intelligence because the manner in which The intelligence is manifesting is that oh, it's actually really convenient to have a light bulb on your head when you live in a super dark area So those would be the bottom feeder so to speak consciously that manifest evolutionarily strictly just out of Interference with their environments. It was dark lights useful. Therefore light evolved So that's creates a bunch of animals and then you can have Some more animals or some more species come in and predate these organisms, right? So that creates a different kind of intelligence, which is a competitive intelligence So notice how these the angler fish isn't actually under pressure necessarily It's under more pressure from its environment than from its competitors because you can tell because the way it looks is so influenced by its environment Whereas the predators are more influenced by Going to get the food now. I'm not saying they're all predators are preying on angler fish the angler fish is a metaphor for what the lowest level of Evolutionary biology is in my worldview So then you get these predators coming in and there's going to be another pathway of intelligence Selective intelligence that comes in because there's competition between predators. So the ones relative to their environment No, not much predation pressure Within themselves when the predators come in the predation pressure is Coming from the fact that they're feeding themselves from predation So there's a pressure for those species to become more intelligent for the ends of predation And then there's more pressure Because predation is unstable and we like stability because we like to do colonialism and that's not Colonizing other countries that's just making a little colony. There's another selection Which is for non-competitive intelligence So evolution is basically these three things churning together always at all times But the manner to which they extend into materiality evolves over time So sometimes it will be more intelligence in matter sometimes less But overall you can tell what the history of a species is based on how it looks because for example the angler fish All right. Well It has a light it would evolve Due to pressure from its environment. Whereas we as humans all look very similar And so we can conclude that we evolved due to competitive intellectual pressure between each other So that sort of gives you an idea of how you might Understand things without having to appeal to anything material. So that's why I think the advantage of this worldview is is that You don't have to appeal to stuff like consensus Of people who don't have a model that essentially doesn't make predictions without having to like add some more uh metaphysical presuppositions And then when they always have to hear people say we're still looking that really does sound like an excuse Like just to have faith, you know two more weeks for you get the answer like I understand that that's part of how that's how That is part of the modern understanding of science the notion of falsifiability but This is sort of unique to ester worldview So I would say like there's no burden on me to accept an incomplete model If my worldview tells me that I don't even have to think about a model unless it's complete and by complete I mean start to finish every single inference Is some phenomenon that we can verify exists. So we're a long way from that with regards to evolution. So I'd say that Even if you don't agree with me about my metaphysical um meanderings Skepticism would still be warranted for this model because it there's no mechanism for a biogenesis So there's no actual way to trace out the logic to see whether It's true that genes dictate behavior and so forth. So I actually think the ones who place line faith and evolution are Committing a fallacy because there is no model for a biogenesis Combined with the atheistic movement of modern materialist sciences basically led to a strain of anti teleology That's those against the concept of science which we're not supposed to come into science being anti or pro anything we're supposed to Come into science without a presupposition to try to Let nature show us what's happening But anyway to conclude, uh, thanks so much For listening and I hope that this was educational for everyone in the audience and I really appreciate all the other Debaters and the hosts for being such good sports Thanks again No problem. Thank you to all of our debaters here today Folks modern day debate is up to 158,000 subscribers a massive massive number We want to thank you all for that support Um, but you know, we don't want to stop the support there. So let's get some more subscribers Shall we um, and we can also get some more likes in there as well while we're at it We're going to head into our super chat section. I'm going to start reading some questions off from our Live chat, but if you haven't got your super chat in yet and you still want to there's still time No problem Keep your questions respectful. Can you have a Including remark You want to have a concluding remark? Um, it's only fair to the others too. I mean Yeah Jen, do you consider what you just did a concluding remark? I'm good to not say anything else until the Yeah, I rambled on so It's absolutely fine. I feel the floor was uh Pretty dominated and you didn't get to say a whole lot. So I was very happy to let you Speak So, okay sal you may have A few minutes To say some words and in which time I will grant the same courtesy To Sai and Amy. I told you I was going to get the sal Sai thing mixed up Go ahead sal Um One reason that evolutionary theories compelling is the similarity of organisms It does look like a tree So, you know, I could I could tell sometimes people are related and Um, we know genetically we can build family trees And so It does look like there is on some level universal common ancestry I didn't debate universal common ancestry in this discussion I used it For the sake of argument that is universal common ancestry at the organismal level I've definitely disputed it at the protein family level So if you know if we're assuming you know if There are Christians out there who believe in Evolution and I I'm one of those that don't I believe there's special creation. Why would God make things look like a family tree? I would argue that this tree is optimized For scientific discoverability when I was studying at the NIH I was really horrified at the How we use these model organisms They dissect them and subject them to all sorts of horrible things But these creatures died in our place kind of like the sacrifices in the Old Testament times So that we could be our sins could be atoned for and that we could be healed It also says Jesus the Lamb of God By his stripes we were healed And so I would say the explanation for why we look similar to chimps and You know, there seems distant similarity to other creatures These things can die in our place so that we can be healed Also the patterns at the genetic level and this was Even though it wasn't really the focus of my Oxford University paper It seems that when you do Gene sequences you can predict protein just by comparing the sequences and running it through this This mathematical Direct coupling analysis you can you can predict 3d folds. That's not you know, that doesn't look random to me It looks like God has made every creature special In such a way that they have a piece of the puzzle to help understand human biology And that's a subject for another discussion and I'd like to thank everyone The audience and all the participants today and the hosts. Thank you All right, thank you Sai or Amy do either of you have any final words before we get into our audience questions? Well, um Yeah, I'll just take a couple of minutes because I've been talking a lot I just want to thank the other debaters I actually agree with a great deal of what everyone has said On both sides of the issue because uh, my main message is that Science is is a wonderful thing to do. It's a wonderful field of study You know it and and it's also very very difficult And if there's any I mean every every field thinks its field is the most difficult and the most interesting But there's no question that biology is the one It is the most interesting because it's us And it is also the most difficult again because it's us and every living creature So I think what we need to do Despite our religious views and despite our any other views We may have that are ideological and I really agree with Jen when she talked about that That's really important to keep all ideology out of science But what we all need to do is to commit To understanding whether we believe this world was created or not How it works and If we are Religious as Sal and I are In a particular faith That understanding of how the world works will support and be in harmony with our religious faith. I believe that Sincerely and that's what I'll stop All right. Thank you. Amy. Do you have anything spicy to add? I do just a very quick wrap up I Want to thank First of all, I want to thank Justin for moderating and Sai and Sal and Jen Who I knew they were all mentions anyway and this debate was going to be fun, but I will say my closing Oh, and there is there is an after show after the debate, but if you have your own after show Please on feel free to email us as well as get out to the MZD discord Anyway The theory evolution The theory explains the the diversity of my life and to all together religious or because I'm not just saying Sai and Jen I'm also saying we're all from Sai and Jen It is about the way out there Just wondering what we have before and what they think all over and how amazing to be on the Q&A Sounds like the audience is reporting or being Robotic on any event So the audience can just let us know but is everybody Yeah, she's not Robotic to me. Is it the stream? That's Robotic Several commenters reported that we trolled with several people The only reason I mentioned is that several people reported it so I'm not I'm not actually I can't hear the stream right now so I can't check Well, that is a shame I'm sending so much love out there Um I don't know if I should repeat myself But I would just I'll say it one more time No, just hang on a second Amy It might be the stream because Jen was also a robot apparently So just hang on a second Hello I'm just going to go ahead and I'll do some housekeeping here real quick and let everybody know to hit the like and subscribe button and as I say this hopefully someone will confirm for me that Oh I sound okay So it might be Testing 1, 2, 3 Audience reporting that Amy and I are still Robotic How about me Is this happening to me too Audience Hmm Okay, let's go into our first super chat then maybe Uh And see if it I mean I have no way Audience is reporting that it's fine Is it? Okay, we just had a brief second of Justin needs Ram donated So maybe just back up like two minutes Amy Sure I'm going to give the thing I said in the opposite direction Well, uh So in closing Evolution is both a fact and a theory is a fact is a true premise that we're plugging in and a theory is a group of facts a framework that explains a phenomena a theory Uh being in question today evolution not in the scientific community so much there are still answers to be uh found However, evolution very specifically explains the diversity of life and so I want to come together with my religious and non-religious brothers and sisters as we work together in science to continue to make discoveries and feed that hunger of curiosity I am sending love as I said to all of in a lot that is and our lovely moderator there will be an after show on my channel if you're looking for some fun however you should all be checking out the MDD discord which almost always throws after shows as well but not before we have an amazing Q&A so thank you and send them love I just want to thank the chat for letting us know we were having some difficulties there without you we would never have known and now we'll get into some super chats So we'll start off with our first question stupid whore energy Biden Harris 2024 for $5 says could Sal address why some protein folds like Globlin and Rossman suggest common ancestry contrary to the view that no protein folds have ancestors Stupid whore I've been fantasizing about you sending a super chat and me using uh to like to respond I have no comment on that but I will say that regarding it's not just the folds you could see this in sequence when we this is why blast and like conserve domain database you can clearly see that their islands where there's no it's like this is why you cannot detect homology if you cannot unify all the sequences of your one quote unquote super homologue so I can't comment on that but it doesn't overturn anything I said about there's no common ancestor for all proteins this is acknowledged by so many evolutionary biologists there's no master sequence from which all proteins came from and so thank you for pointing that out I always look forward to you having papers that I've never read and trying to trip me up but I'll just say that everything that I pointed out still supersedes anything you just said so thank you I was so looking forward it's been like it's been like since last year since I've seen you so nice to see you again all right thanks for your answer Dr. Dino with $2 says for everyone did dinos have feathers are birds dinos they all be the very quick to answer yes dinosaurs and birds birds are avian dinosaurs but then if anyone else has a differing agreement did dinosaurs have feathers there seems to be evidence that there were dinosaurs that did have feathers might not have been all of them but there seem to be dinosaurs that have feathers no idea no idea if dinosaurs had feathers that birds descend from dinosaurs the gentleman nothing to add it would be just repetitive I'm guessing at that point T. Carr sends $19.99 just to say they're here for church I guess this is their modern day debate is their church and then just another comment from Isaiah Diesel just wants everyone to know they love Amy I'm sending that love right back to you alright so now question the sinister porpoise $5 for Sal and Jen does P equal NP and has either of you seen a mathematical proof that DNA is touring complete I've not seen a mathematical proof touring completeness of DNA but DNA in eukaryotes is in a chromatin complex there is a paper out on chromatin computation being touring complete so that's the closest that I've seen P equals NP I've never I'm sorry I don't know what that refers to well I think it's a major unsolved problem in theoretical computer science so I don't know if that's what they're alluding to but I have no comment as to whether P equals NP I'm not even sure that that's a coherent notion and then with regards to touring completeness it's it's something to do with computational universality and it means it can be used to simulate any touring machine so now I have to turn around and look that up too so touring machine is a mathematical model of computation describing an abstract machine so despite the simplicity it's capable of implementing any computer algorithm so is DNA touring complete no there is a I mean there's only four components to DNA so there's that sort of limits it's computational capacity our next question again from doc dyno genetic entropy hasn't existed for four billion years from a paleontologist so that's a statement from them from a paleontologist no question mark period the question for Sal could you accept EV I'm assuming they mean evolution thank you for the super chat I don't believe in evolution for the reasons that I stated I had been an old earth creationist and I think that's a defensible model but having worked for Dr. Sanford I began to become a young life creationist because at the radar genome is deteriorating I don't think humans could have been around for very long certainly not evolve over six million years we're deteriorating fast that's sadly a testable hypothesis if we're going to keep losing genes and capability I mean our IQs are going down slowly and we're getting we're not getting healthier there's not a single geneticist that thinks we are and there was actually a paper by Kondrashov who was a colleague of my professor at the NIH who was an evolutionary biologist Kondrashov said he asked the rhetorical question why aren't we dead 100 times over so that in the protein evolution problem we believe that a naturalistic so you could say change over time and I'm an evolutionist in that sense but I'd be kind of like one that believes in the miraculous action of God helping us along the way so at least I think for humans we're very recent and probably I believe they are miraculously created as far as the age of the earth there have been some interesting things in chemistry with the biotic materials looking very young we still have a radiation problem but I've actually been looking into heavy electron quasi-particles as an alternative explanation for some of the signatures of radiometric dating so at this point I probably will never go back to being an evolutionist thank you for the super chat thank you for the question this next one is also for you Sal I believe it's a little tongue in cheek I don't think there's any like this for ten dollars Sal why would anyone take you seriously when your background is not real people don't star wars people want reality oh you know I don't know what to say but I'm glad you like look see there's that is an advanced tie fighter and the two up there are the standard tie fighters of the imperial you know the imperial whatever they are they say x-wing oh my goodness that was my favorite video game x-wing vs tie fighter I still have I have written diaries you know I would take I destroyed an imperial star destroyer with my x-wing fighter so yeah maybe people shouldn't take me seriously anyone else notice the eyes light up with the passion about a video game that suddenly poured out of him alright thank you so much star wars is awesome there you go it's ironic I was watching that today and I believe Ryan the other modern day debate moderators watching episode 5 with his son right now the next question is for Jen from Davegar for five dollars he says the other people on this panel spend five minutes on the problem of quantifying fitness is your methodology for qualifying intelligence for quantifying intelligence sorry these are new words for me well I don't know if you want me to go all the way into a methodology for quantification is probably better to just give a definition so intelligence is inference of a maximum of information from a minimum of data so whatever your intuitive understanding of intelligence is probably lines up with my unless you have some peculiar definition necessitating agency so my definition for intelligence is substance independent so you could say by this definition something like chat gbt is intelligence because it can infer a lot of information from a small amount of data so thanks for the question highly relevant appreciate it all right Ben Teche says hey Sal can you summarize Jen's closing statement I don't think I can I'm not familiar but I do have one point that I could summarize it from what I do know there was when she talked about the future realizing itself in the present or something like that there was a push for quantum biology because they felt that John Joe McFadden he said you know it's amazing all the adaptation because you need foresight so foresight is very important for making all these adaptations because like I gave the example the kind of the clueless hiker who just keeps dumping all this gear because he doesn't have foresight there are Jen is I think I hope you give me permission here she said she identifies as a panpsychist panpsychist a lot there was one notable panpsychist Sewell Wright who was the founder of neo Darwinism and then one who didn't identify as a panpsychist that would be Fred Hoyle but he's very panpsychic like where the universe on the whole is intelligent and that kind of touched base with Wheeler who said you know retro causality the future determines the present the past the present now affects the past and he had this incredible experiment called double slit delayed choice experiment where we proved this through quantum mechanics so that's about the best I could understand of Jen's idea I thought that idea of the future generating the past is very compelling we have aspects of that in quantum computing and my advisor Johns Hopkins was a quantum computing guy so there you go thank you for the chat and the question and I hope I represented you halfway well Jen oh yeah that's great thanks alright this next question from Josh Allen is the next John Elway for $5 coming at you hot here Jen Jen thinks Jesus was God but why was he a carpenter he could have easily just tapped his toes and built anything checkmate Christians that for me? I'm not a Christian I thought it was strange because I didn't recall you declaring maybe we'll just leave it at that I'm just reading the super chat it's all good I can't think of anything that wouldn't be horribly rude to say right now so I won't say anything Josh Allen maybe if you meant that for someone else there you go it might have been a position they might have just assumed because generally an evolution debate that would be the religious positions not all evolution deniers are Christian in fact Hindus and denying evolution ever since it was introduced to them there you go not all evolution proponents are not Christians so in other words I'm a Christian and I I uphold evolution and I would say that question is not worth answering by anybody we'll leave it at that alright well our next super chat is very controversial and it's just for the good doctor daf mantis five dollars what is the value of growing a beard in this day and age do women respond to beards? if I want respect am I ever better off bearded sorry doctor you're muted in your case no in my own case I don't care about attracting women because I'm very happily married and I have the beard because I'm very lazy I hate shaving every day I'm going to push back on myself right now are you suggesting you don't put any effort into attracting your wife anymore well she likes the beard oh well there you go so the answer is yeah for your wife alright our last question here the sinister porpoise comes back spending another two dollars to clarify that and NP are sets so P can equal NP I appreciate the verification but unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with this problem answer it so um yeah maybe spell it out in more detail on the server and I'll answer you once I figure out what it is you're asking exactly alright well with that that was the last question so I'm going to thank all four of you for coming hanging out with me tonight that was an excellent debate I decided I'm going to have an after show on my channel just before Amy's after jokes I noticed yours isn't starting for a bit is that right Amy I may adjust it but I'll give a little bit of time so that you can be the first because I am I'm up for that I was going to do a bit of a chat and then maybe pop over and just say hi on your channel later on if you're doing a combo about this debate okay that sounds fantastic and so everyone should go check out Jen's channel and I also just want to put into the record that I am I am both against and for Beards whatever works for you I am just putting them to record for everybody is it possible to share the link I put it in the chat but I can't share links in the chat um I put it in the zoom chat I will make sure thanks yeah it's in the zoom chat and I would put it in the youtube chat but I don't think I can I'm going to put that link in the zoom chat or in the youtube chat for you right now for anyone who's interested in Jen's after show watch for the link under yahoo ligan that's my screen name on the youtube's and you can go check out Jen's after show which then Amy's going to do an after show she's been already actively sharing her link in the chat and I'm sure she'll share it again so with that thank you so much the four of you for coming I'm glad I didn't have to break up too many dog piles that was pretty good if you guys haven't hit your like button yet do so now because we're going to close this stream off and everyone's going to head off to after shows I may even make some rounds to some after shows we'll see how time goes thanks everyone for coming and supporting the channel 158,000 subs let's keep it going the year's not over let's do a record year here shall we and I wish everyone a great night