 Hey everybody, today we are debating a biogenesis and intelligent design and we're starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here. Thanks so much for sticking with us. If you have been waiting since the scheduled start time, we have run a little bit late. I am excited though, we have a backup software now. We are familiar with Streamlabs now and this is something I should have done long ago. So we are glad that we have that backup plan now and so that the delay is my fault, folks. I do want to say we really appreciate Otangelo and Leofilius for being here as they are both very patient, both very gracious as they have been extremely gracious with me and so I really do have, we're very happy to have them here. Want to let you know they are linked in the description and also want to let you know. We are very excited as we have many more debates coming up. So if you love debates, well, we've got good news. We have plenty more including tomorrow at 9 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, a Flat Earth debate between Amy and you could say a classic Flat Earther. No, not Nathan Thompson, but another classic and so we are very excited. If you want a reminder, hit that old subscribe button and don't forget to hit that notification bell for all of the reminders for debates to pick from. So with that, we are very excited to have our guests with us. Want to let you know it's gonna be a fairly flexible format, about 10 minutes from each side and usually we would go with the affirmative. In this case, I assumed Otangelo would be the affirmative but I might be wrong about that. So gentlemen, do you wanna ask, who would like to go first today? Otangelo is free to go first. Well, last time I was first so I would appreciate this time if you could go first. Alrighty, that works. Gotcha. And so this time, Leo Philius will be going first. Then it will be 10 minutes of Otangelo as well and then open discussion for about 50 to 60 minutes followed by Q and A. With that, if you have a question, feel free to fire it into the live chat, tagging me with at modern day debate to make sure that I don't miss any questions. We'll putting them in that list. Super Chat is also an option. If you do Super Chat, it will both make your question or comment go to the top of the list for the Q and A and it'll also give the opportunity to ask or not only ask a question but make a comment toward one of the speakers. So we are very excited to get the ball rolling. I want to say thanks so much everybody for being here again. Thanks to your patience. And with that, we will kick the ball off with Leo Philius. The floor is all yours. Thank you much, James. And thank you again for having me and just to double check one more time. I want to make sure my audio is coming through clearly. It is. All right. Yes, I can hear you well. I'm going to be presenting four points that I hope show that there is no need for an intelligent designer when it comes to the origin of life. And the first point that I would like to start with is that organic compounds can form through natural processes in natural environments. The first one and the most famous one that I'm sure we all remember from either high school or middle school or both is the Miller-Urie experiment. And this was done by Stanley Miller and Harold Urie and they were able to produce amino acids in their mixture. But the thing is they used a reactive mixture of methane and ammonia. And this raised some eyebrows because scientists now suspect and shortly after this experiment begin to expect that Earth's atmosphere was probably mainly an inert mix of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. This brings me into the second experiment that was done by chemist Jeffrey Bada who was actually one of Miller's graduate students. He worked with Jim Cleves at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography which I believe is at the University of California in San Diego. And these experiments were similar to the ones that were performed by Miller and Urie. However, what Jeffrey Bada noted is that when you utilize carbon dioxide and nitrogen these create nitrites and these nitrites actually destroy amino acids almost as fast as they form which doesn't look good. But Bada performed the experiment again but he added iron and carbonate minerals to this solution. And when he did this the solution was rich in amino acids. And this suggests that the origin of significant amounts of amino acids could have occurred on early Earth even with an atmosphere containing mainly carbon dioxide and nitrogen. And it also supports the point that life could have very easily started near hydrothermic vents which is where a lot of iron and other carbonate minerals would be spewing out from within the Earth. This brings me into a third experiment that was done by Martin Farris, Fabio Piertrucci and Antonio Marco and there were a few others and sorry if I'm butchering names there were other names in this but they're all Russian or Eastern European and I honestly don't know how to pronounce them but they were actually capable of producing RNA nucleobases which are just nitrogen bases which can form nucleosides which is the basis for nucleotides which are the basis for RNA. And they put an electric discharge in a laser driven plasma impact in a simulation that was carried out in a reducing atmosphere that contained ammonia and carbon monoxide. And like I said that produced these RNA nucleobases. The fourth experiment that I'd like to talk about was done in 1961 by Joan Oro and again I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. And he was capable of demonstrating that the nucleotide base adenine could be synthesized from hydrogen cyanide and ammonia in a solution of water. And this experiment actually produced very large amounts of the adenine. So what we can see from these four experiments is that a vast array of different types of organic compounds can certainly develop through entirely naturalistic mechanisms in entirely natural environments that are more than expected to have existed on the early earth. The second point that I'd like to talk about are experiments that show that RNA can self amplify and in fact replicate functional molecules. It is believed that the earliest genetic material that life would have utilized would have been RNA and it would have utilized enzymes made of RNA to catalyze its own self replication. And there was an experiment done by Tracy Lincoln and Gerald Joyce and anybody who knows anything about biochemistry probably knows those two names as their bigger names in the biochemistry subject. What they were able to show is that RNA enzymes can actually utilize, I believe it's called oligonucleotide substrates which are just short molecules of RNA or DNA but in this case it would have been RNA to form more and more and more copies of itself essentially undergoing self sustained amplification that could serve as a foundation for full on RNA self replication. Another thing that they were able to show is that these enzymes could also cross replicate with partner enzymes to catalyze each other's exponential amplification. And in this process information can be translated from parent to progeny through two Watson-Crick pairing regions Watson-Crick pair is just two nucleobases bound by a hydrogen bond. I'm sure many of you are probably making of base pairs. And genetic recombination is capable of occurring between these regions and this can result in variants of this enzyme which can actually compete for those oligonucleotide substrates that I mentioned earlier that they utilized for amplification. And this shows the development of a natural selective advantage process that could potentially lead to self sustained Darwinian evolution of the most efficient and most effective replicators. Another point that I'd like to make is that these enzymes are the only known informational macromolecules which can bring about their own exponential amplification. And they can do this indefinitely so long as the materials that... Did we lose you, Leoophilius? I don't know if you were there yet. Otangelo, are you there? Yes, I'm here. Is this some sort of tasteless joke, Leoophilius? Oh, he's gone. I just opened the, don't worry, folks. He's coming back, believe me, I'm an optimist. We do want to mention, well, we forgot a couple of housekeeping things. So as he logs back in, I will keep an eye on Streamlabs or StreamYards and see when he comes back in. Do want to let you know. We are excited about several things, folks. In particular, if you did not know this, if you have been living in a cave on Mars with your fingers in your ears and haven't heard, we, modern day debate, are invading the podcast world, which means, believe me, folks, it's going to be tremendous. Want you to, if you love podcasts, check your favorite podcast app. If you can find us, awesome. If we're not on there, let us know we will get on your favorite podcast app. I am waiting on a few right now, such as Podbean and a couple others, Google Podcasts as well, that are just taking a little bit longer than expected to get us on there, but it is a work in progress. But we have all the ones that you see on the right side of your screen, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Cast Box Stitcher, and others that are not even shown on there, we are on already. And so, want to let you know as well, let's see. We are also excited about the fact that if you are not aware of it, we are now on Subscribestar. So maybe you're like, oh, I don't like Patreon. They trigger me because they got rid of Sargon or whatever it is. We love Sargon. We want to let you know, we do have Subscribestar now. So that is an option. If you don't like Patreon, I know what you mean. And want to let you know as well, we are on Parler, which is basically from the way I understand it. People have kind of been filling me in. Is it fair to say that Parler is the, kind of the Twitter of Republicans? So if you're on there, happy to hear from you. We are still waiting on our dearest friend to come back. And I'm sure he'll be back in just a moment. Want to let you know, we are excited as we have a lot of debates coming up. Want to let you know, we are looking, we have one person that is willing to argue for alien abductions. So if you were a critic, if you are skeptical and whether or not abductions have actually occurred, well, this might be the debate for you. We are only asking if you happen to have a link from a past debate, that helps us to see if your audio and video are ready. And then also, it's not necessary, but ideally, if you do have a working camera, that's always excellent as our kind of our main platform is YouTube. Trying to think of any other channel announcements. We are very, want to say thank you folks. This is something that I'm working on, kind of building this into the border, like a little bit of a special thanks in addition to our Patreon scroll at the bottom. Do want to say thank you so much folks. I am excited about the future of the channel. We are in contact right now. I've sent an email, several emails out, one of which to like William and Craig and others to see if we might be able to put together some huge ground shaking debates. Believe me, they're going to be big people. It's going to be a lot of fun. So do want to let you know we're excited and we're just getting warmed up this summer. And last, I'm going to check my email cause I am not seeing, I'm not seeing our dearest friend, Leo, come back into StreamYard. So I'm guessing that his phone may have died. He said his battery was not fully charged when we started and that he was plugging it in temporarily, but we, I'm kind of guessing that we have lost him. And so, we might let you know as well. I don't know if we ever really communicate the vision for this channel. So I will. This is the last thing. This is the last bit of stalling I can do. But I will say that we are excited about the future. Several of the reasons are we are trying to promote, basically build a platform that is fair to all sides. People like Leo, people like Otangelo, as well as everybody else, no matter what walk of life they are from folks. I can tell you from my background, I've seen it not only on YouTube where some, you know, some people both on YouTube and not all, cause a lot of them do a tremendous job, but YouTube, academia, different parts of life where people say, oh, oh, we're all about diversity. We're all about tolerance. They're like, oh no, but no, we're not going to have those people come on and be able to discuss things or debate things. No, no, no, no. Oh, they're Democrats or they're Republicans. No, no, no, we can't allow that. We are trying to have a fully, radically tolerant channel that will welcome pretty much anything that won't get us kicked off of YouTube. So, want to let you know, we are very excited about the future and we are very excited as, there may be some triggering. Once you know everybody gets triggered here at some point or another, anything can happen, but I promise it's worth it. And so, let's see here. I am afraid to say, Otangelo, I am sincerely sorry. I don't know what to do. We have kind of given our best shot and we might be at a point at which we may have to rain check. Well, if you want, I can just make my introduction and if until then Leo Fidius doesn't come back, you eventually can set another date for our debate. It's up to you. I would, the only thing is I kind of suspect that whatever it is that I kind of think it's his battery and I think that the way he made it sound is that he can only have one thing plugged in at once in some way, shape, or form, because prior to before we went live, he said something about where he couldn't have both his headphones plugged in and his power cord. And so, even if he's able to keep his power cord plugged into the phone, I don't know if we're gonna be able to complete the debate just because we basically, I don't know if we're gonna be able to complete it just because we would hear that background noise from his headphones being unplugged. What we may do, folks, is we may reschedule this one. And so, if you're thirsty for more, we do plan on having this debate. I wanna give a sincere thank you to Otangelo for his patience. Otangelo, you've been through war to get this debate and that's why I am honestly really sorry that it's been a long, hard uphill battle to actually get this to work. Just because, well, originally, it was my fault yesterday, folks, that we rescheduled it today because I accidentally, there was a miscommunication between Converse and I, which is 100% my fault. And then, second of all, I was all embarrassingly, I was super irritable when we started today because we couldn't get Zoom to work for everybody. And so, Otangelo had to deal with that too. I'm so sorry, Otangelo, for this being a rough day. Wait, Leo's back! Oh my gosh, let's see. Let's see if maybe he has a way to keep himself in here. So, let me add to stream. I am back. I didn't realize until just 30 seconds ago that I had cut out gun. Somebody tell me where I had left off at. One sec, just to be sure, I mean, I'm happy to keep going if we can, but I do want to quick ask, are you sure that you're gonna be able to finish this just because I don't want to keep going and then have it? Yeah, I think it happened because I went out, I have this through my Chrome instead of through Gmail because I figured it was easy to do this through Chrome. And I went out of Chrome to go back to look at my notes and I think that's where it crashed. So, I can just stay in the app here, stay on Google Chrome and I don't think I should have any problems moving forward. You got it. Okay, well, let's give it a shot. Thanks for your patience, Otangelo and everyone else and thanks for your persistence, Leo. The floor is all yours. So, just a quick question. Where was it that I left off? What was the last thing you remember me saying? Otangelo might know better than I do because I have to be honest. My mind is kind of blanked since we thought we lost you. You were talking about amino acids and there were viable explanations how they could have emerged on prebiotic curve. Okay, so did I get to any of the internal problems with DNA mechanics? I don't think I did. No. With that, there are- You were referring to- Okay, there are these things called Aeon. I'm gonna have to do this without looking at my notes because I don't want it to crash. So, it's important my ignorance because I'm generally more physics and astrophysics, but so there are things called ALU elements, which I believe are- There are a type of transposable element. I think they have some sort of relation to retro transposons, but don't quote me on that. And albeit they have some use in the evolutionary process, for the most part, we don't really know what purpose they serve other than their own self-replication. But we do know that they are implicated in numerous mutations that lead to cancer. So, implicated in numerous cancers, personally, I don't see why an intelligent designer would want these elements to be in our genetic material. Another one that I think is really, really interesting are, so hopefully everybody knows what pre-messenger RNA is. Think it's what you get before you have messenger RNA and you have things called exons, which are coding regions and then between those exons are things called introns, which are non-coding regions and those are sort of sprinkled in between the coding regions or the exons. So, when during, I believe it's some form of a transcription process for pre-messenger RNA, these intron regions have to actually be spliced out or they have to be taken out so that the exon regions can be spliced together. Now, the thing is, is that these intron regions are transcribed into the prem RNA to then be cut back out of it. Why would an intelligent designer design this process to have to, well, we're gonna add this in, but then we're gonna cut it back out later? That doesn't seem like a very efficient process. And I think that if humans were to ever develop a system, they wouldn't develop it to do that. And another problem is, is there's a lot of mutations that can occur in these intron exon regions that can lead to all sorts of disorders. So this whole process of how mRNA, a full mature messenger RNA is created, can lead to very defective mutations that can in turn lead to disorders. Why would an intelligent designer design the process to work this way? If we assume, as the evidence tells us that this is the results, what we see now is the result of billions of years of evolutionary processes, well, that explains why we might see some defects and things not running properly through things like gene transfer and mutations and all the stuff that occurs generally throughout the billions of years that we've mapped. So through evolutionary processes, we can explain why mistakes might be made. This was all intelligently designed. It begs the question, why did the intelligent designer create it with mistakes in mind? That doesn't seem like, to me, that doesn't seem like an intelligent design. And there's another thing called protein kinases and these are peeler enzymes that they can alter proteins by adding phosphates to them and these are subject to numerous malfunctions. And again, I question why are these things here if they lead to malfunctions or why were they not designed in such a way to not lead to malfunctions? That doesn't seem like something that would be intelligently designed. This seems more like mistakes that arose through billions of years of evolution in natural selection. And my fourth point is that we don't have, and I'm gonna steal a term from a Mr. Tom John point I'm sure we have all heard of, we have no implicit empirical basis for non-natural causation for anything, let alone the origin of life. But since that's the topic of our discussion, I'm gonna stick to strictly that. If we look at anything that's been explained, utilizing genetics in biochemistry and evolutionary science, nothing, literally nothing has implicated non-natural causes. It's all natural causes occurring in the natural world on natural material. What basis do we have for even implying that the origin of life requires non-natural causation other than the general argument through ignorance that many people use in stating, well, we don't have a natural explanation so it must be something non-natural. There's no implication for that. Nobody's ever observed non-natural causation actually take place and verify that it is non-natural. Secondly, how does something that's not natural affect the natural world to bring about causes and versatility? Somebody would have to define a mechanism by which that occurs and nobody has. So we don't even have an empirical basis for non-natural causation. I don't see why we would need to make that assumption for the origin of life and that closes my introductory statement and I will yield the remainder of my time to the moderator. Thank you very much. We will kick it over to Otangelo now. Thanks so much. Excited that we are still getting to continue this. The floor is all yours, Otangelo. Yes, thank you. The origin of life is widely regarded as one of the most difficult open problems in science but the map approaches in the laboratory have not generated anything nearly as complex as a living cell. And what has been achieved is a far cry from the complexity of anything living. The total lack of any kind of experimental evidence leading to the recreation of life, not to mention the spontaneous emergence of life, undermines the worldview of who wants materialism to be true. But of course, there is always an excuse. Science is working on it, but it is really justified to put hope that one day a materialistic explanation will be found. David Minton stated, we now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between the living cell and the most highly-ordered non-biological systems, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it possibly could be conceived. And Lynn Margulis stated, to go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. And Eugene Konin, advisory editorial board of trends and genetics stated, a successful of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides on the origin to translation. Through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle. The difficulties remain formidable. For all the effort, we do not currently have coherent and plausible models for the path from simple organic molecules to the first life forms. Most damningly, the powerful mechanisms of biological evolution were not available for all the stages preceding the emergence of replicator systems. Given all these major difficulties, it appears prudent to seriously consider radical alternatives for the origin of life. And in fact, there are basically just two options to consider. Either life emerged by a lucky accident spontaneously through self-organization by unguided natural events, or through the direct intervention, creative force, and activity of an intelligent designer. Evolution is not the possible explanation because evolution depends on DNA replication. Many have claimed that physical necessity could have promoted chemical reactions, which eventually resulted in the emergence of life. The problem here, however, is that the genetic sequence that specifies the arrangement of proteins can be of any order. There is no constraint by physical needs. To understand why random events are not a good explanation, we best have a look at the deepest level on the atomic scale. Life uses just five nucleobases to make DNA and RNA. Two purines and three pyrimidines. Purines use two rings with nine atoms, and pyrimidines use just one ring with six atoms. Hydrogen bonding between purine and pyrimidines bases is fundamental to the biological functions of nucleic acids, as in the formation of the double helix structure of DNA. This bonding depends on the selection of the right atoms in the ring structure. Pyrimidine rings consist of six atoms, four carbon atoms, and two nitrogen atoms. And purines have nine atoms forming the ring, five carbon atoms, and four nitrogen atoms. Remarkably, it is the composition of these atoms that permit that the strength of the hydrogen bond that permits to join the two DNA strands and form Watson-Crick-based pairing, and well-known DNA ladder. Neither transcription nor translation of the messages encoded in RNA and DNA would be possible if the strength of the bonds had different values. Hence, life, as we understand it today, would not have a reason. Now, someone could say that there could be no different composition and physical constraints, and necessity could eventually permit only this specific order and arrangement of the atoms. Now, in a recent paper from 2019, scientists explored how many different chemical arrangements of the atoms to make these nucleobases would be possible. Surprisingly, they found well over a million variants. The remarkable thing is, among the incredible variety of organisms on Earth, these two molecules are essentially the only ones used in life. Why? Are these the only nucleotides that could perform the function of information storage? If not, are they perhaps the best? One might expect that molecules with smaller connected carbon components should be easier for ibiotic chemistry to explore. According to their scientific analysis, the natural ribocytes and the oxyribocytes inhabit a fairly redundant, in other words, superfluous, unnecessary, needless, and non-minimal region of the space. This is a remarkable find and implicitly leads to design. There would be no reason why random events would generate complex rather than simple and minimal carbon arrangements, nor is there physical necessity that says that the composition should be so. This is evidence that a directing intelligent agency is the most plausible explanation. The chemistry space is far too vast to select by chance the right finely tuned functional life-bearing arrangement. In the mentioned paper, the investigators asked if other, perhaps equally good or even better genetic systems would be possible. Their chemical experimentations and studies concluded that the answer is no. Many, nearly as good, some equally good, and a few stronger base pairing analog systems are known. There is no reason why these structures could or would have emerged in this functional complex configuration by random trial and error. There is a complete lack of scientific materialistic explanations, despite decades of attempts to solve the riddle. What we can see is that direct intervention, a creative force, the activity of an intelligent agency, a powerful creator, is capable to have the intention and implement the right arrangement of every single atom into functional structures and molecules in a repetitive manner. In the case of DNA, at least 500,000 nucleotides to store the information to kickstart life, exclusively with four bases to produce a storage device that uses a genetic code to store functional, instructional, complex information, functional amino acids and phospholipids to make membranes, and ultimately life. Lucky accidents, the spontaneous self-organization by unguided coincidental events that drove atoms into self-organization in an orderly manner without external direction, chemical, non-biological, are incapable and unspecific to arrange atoms into the right order to produce the full classes of building blocks used in all life forms. That's my introduction. You, Bat, thank you very much. Otangelo, we will now kick it into open discussion mode. So thank you very much. Gentlemen, the floor is all yours. So I just want to make sure I heard you correctly that we don't have a reason to expect that essentially that blind chemical processes could produce the compounds that are utilized by both RNA and DNA. Yes, that's correct. Because there is no experiment experimentation in the lab that confirmed that it is possible by unguided means. So what about the experiment that Joan Oro, and I cited this, but I might have cut out before anybody got to hear it. But in 1961, Joan Oro actually was capable of demonstrating that the nucleotide base adenine could be developed from a mixture of hydrogen, cyanide, and ammonia in water through purely chemical processes. Yeah, the problem is just the one that I said in the introduction. You have a specific order of atoms that make up the pyrimidines and purines. There are four carbons and two nitrogens in pyrimidines, and five carbons and four nitrogen atoms in purines. And if you don't have that exact composition, you are unable to make Watson-Crick base pairing. And that is essential to have the DNA ladder and in the end to be able to store genetic information and to have life. So there is no constraint to have any arrangement of these atoms on the nuclear basis. Well, I mean, I think that would just be more of the fact that carbon can bond with so many things. I mean, I would think you would know this. That's why everybody in biochemistry says that life, at least as we currently know it, is carbon-based because carbon is very, very versatile and can bond with numerous other atoms. So I don't think it's really much of a surprise that we find that most of the basic aspects of the structure in both RNA and DNA contain a lot of carbon and a lot of nitrogen and oxygen, all of which are some of the simplest elements in the universe. And while nitrogen and oxygen can't bind with things the way carbon can, they still, especially oxygen, they can still combine with a lot of things. So the fact that we see carbon, nitrogen, oxygen in RNA and DNA, to me, honestly, I don't see that as a surprise at all. Well, the surprise is that it doesn't have to be so. Why is it so? Why is only carbon and nitrogen incorporated in the nuclear basis if there is no constraint that could be sulfur or any other atoms? And in that paper, which I mentioned in 2019, they said it could be any other different molecule composition. But we have the specific order which permits Watson-Crick-based pairing. And there is no reason why it should be so. I think there is. That's just the way nature works. These chemicals were the best for doing this. And so the chemicals that did it this way won out against the ones that didn't. Well, why should it be so? For having the first living, self-replicating cell, you would have at least to have 500,000 nucleotides joined at the same building site and then join them in the right sequence to have a functional blueprint, a genome that would specify the amino acids used for proteins. But what good is a genome for if you don't have the machines to transcribe it? Well, see, that's how DNA works right now. If we go back four billion years, we don't even know if DNA would have existed yet. So we can't look at how DNA works today and extrapolate that to billions of years in the past where it very likely did not operate anywhere near the way that it does today. It was probably significantly more complex, significantly less efficient, and more chaotic. There is no known life form that does not use DNA. And actually, in all the papers that propose a minimal living cell, DNA is a component of it. Well, of course. But I think I would at least assume that you would agree with this because every biochemistry geneticist I've heard talk about it states that the earliest life forms probably did not use DNA. They probably used RNA. And like I said, it was probably significantly more complex, less efficient, and more chaotic of a process. And through naturally selective processes, it essentially honed itself so that processes that worked better began to dominate over those that didn't. And then those life forms began to dominate the planet. And that's probably how the transition from RNA to DNA happened. Well, first of all, there was no natural selection prior to a life started because a natural selection depends on DNA replication. And so you can't smuggle evolutionary jargon into a biogenesis because there was no selection. Why would there be a selection of the four nuclear bases prebiotically? If the DNA bases, they have no goal to become information storage mechanism. There actually is a naturally selective advantage process. And I think I cut out before anybody could hear it again. But Gerald Joyce and Tracy Lincoln, I believe it was, showed, number one, that RNA can self-amplify utilizing oligonucleotide substrates and can even cross-replicate, catalyzing each other's amplification. And that they passed their information naturally from parent to progeny through Watson-Crick-Pairing. And that because of genetic recombination that can occur during this process can lead to variants of these RNA enzymes that can actually compete for the oligonucleotide substrates over other ones. So we actually do see a naturally selective advantage process occurring here. Well, first of all, there has not been able to start the cycle and join more than 40 nucleotides. And that is the limit of the eigencycle. So you have with 40 nucleotides joined together and not even close the 500,000 nucleotides that you need to have the first genetic information program to start the first life. Just because we can't do it in a lab doesn't mean nature can't do it. We can't create black holes in a lab. But we still know that black holes exist and they occur naturally. We can't create stars in a lab. We still know that stars occur naturally. We can't create galaxies in a lab. We still know that galaxies occur naturally. Just because humans haven't done it yet doesn't mean it can't occur naturally. And in fact, nature and we can see this all the time. Nature oftentimes does things better than humans can. Well, that is a nice materialism of the gaps argument. We don't know yet how. What is materialism of the gaps? Well, that's just what you said now. We don't know yet how it could happen, but we just believe that in the future, science will find out. Well, no, in over 60 years of experiments, science has not even come close to synthesize RNA in the lab. That's far off from even having a self-replicating cell. I mean, it's been over 60 years and we still don't know why the universe is accelerating in its expansion. That doesn't mean it's something not natural. There's no such thing as a naturalism or a materialism of the gaps. Inference to the best explanation is not fallacious. And if the best explanation has only ever been a natural one, then we can assume that we don't know the answer to this yet. But it's more than likely going to be a natural one. We can't say that it 100% will be because there's always the chance that it might be the first thing that's explained with a non-natural explanation. But we don't have anything to imply that. So it isn't fallacious. It's literally saying, well, everything that we have ever explained in any subject has always been natural. We can't explain this yet, but we should expect that it's probably going to be a natural explanation. That's called inference to the best explanation. That's not fallacious. Yes, why is the inference to the best not explanation design when you see in over 60 years of experiments that there are so many problems in regards of synthesizing RNA. And these problems are known. And if you want, I can list them to you. There are so many problems. There is no constraint, for example, to join the base to the ribose at the two prime position. There is no constraint to join the false faith to the five prime position. There is no constraint to have left-handed ribose and right-handed ribose. And life only uses right-handed ribose. There is no selection process for all these things. So why do you think that unguided chaotic events would produce a genetic material? Because that's what's implied. The fact that we can't explain yet everything that you just said is not evidence that it has to be a designer. It's only evidence that we haven't yet explained it. And as for the chirality of DNA, whether it's right-handed or left-handed, and I would have to look for it, but I can find the article in Quanta Magazine, which is a very well-respected scientific magazine. They talk about the chirality of the particles in cosmic rays likely having an effect on that. Obviously, that hasn't been verified, but it is, again, albeit conjectural. It is a reasonable explanation. And it's significantly more reasonable than God did it. Well, you have so, so many problems. I can list them to you. Bring all the parts together and joining them at the right position. Attach the nucleic bases to the ribose and in a repetitive manner at the same correct place, and the backbone being a repetitive homopolymer. Prebiotic glycosidic bond formation between nucleosides and the base. Prebiotic phosphodiester bond formation. Fine-tuning of the strength of the hydrogen-based pairing forces. This is what I wrote forward in my introduction. The instability degradation and asphalt problem. Bones that are thermodynamically unstable in water and overall intrinsically instability and RNA nucleotide building blocks degrade at warm temperatures in time periods ranging from 19 days to 12 years. Then there is the energy problem. Doing things costs energy. There has to be a ready source of energy to produce RNA. In modern cells, energy is consumed to make RNA. And then is the minimal nucleotide quantity problem. The prebiotic conditions would have had to be right for reactions to give perceptible yields of bases that could pair with each other. Then there's the water paradox. The hydrolytic demination of DNA and RNA nucleobases is rapid and reversible as is the base catalyzed cleavage of RNA in water. This leads to a paradox. RNA requires water to do the job but RNA cannot emerge in water and cannot replicate with sufficient fidelity in water without sophisticated repair mechanisms in space. And so on. I can list you many, many more problems. That's RNA now. RNA four billion years ago probably didn't work the same way. Well, it had to work the same way because we only know that life works with RNA and DNA. So it had to be when life began in that way. There was no other solution. So it's not possible for the mechanisms that RNA, that both RNA and DNA use to have slowly been improved through naturally selective processes over the last four billion years. The way that we see DNA work today, it had to, when it first arose, it had to arise to do exactly that in exactly the way we see it today. Because I'm sorry, but I don't even think most biochemists whether theist or atheist would agree with that. Well, as I told you before, DNA and RNA had to be present when life began. So you didn't have four billion years. Yeah, you said, well, we had four billion years. No, we didn't. If we take the evolutionary timeframe, there was a window of about 200 million years to form life from non-life. The 200 million years isn't a long time to you? Well, I think even if you have a million years or 500,000 years or two billion years or whatever, the problem is that the molecules, the basic building blocks of life, if they would be present on the Earth, rather than join to functional machines and factories, they would simply disintegrate on the Earth and be radiated by UV radiation. And there would be the contrary of actually organizing to complexity. They would just randomize. Yeah, that's what we see happen to DNA and RNA today. We don't know how DNA and RNA would have reacted to lighter, I should say specifically RNA, because I mean, it's almost an established fact that RNA existed before DNA. We don't know how it would have reacted to electromagnetic radiation when it was first forming, and it probably wouldn't have necessarily been a negative reaction, because the energy carried by electromagnetic radiation probably helped to catalyze a lot of these processes. Also, these enzymes, these compounds would have probably been developed in vastly greater amounts than they were being destroyed in, which still means that we, I mean, if they were being destroyed and on the order of maybe, let's say, 10 to the 25th of these molecules were being destroyed, well, what if 10 to the 80th of them were being produced for every 10 to the 25th that were destroyed? So they could, and this is what I have heard actually biochemists say is that these chemicals were being produced in a greater abundance than they were being destroyed in, which is gonna allow for certain processes to take place, and we're eventually going to see the very earliest building blocks of life begin to develop. The problem is, Leofilius, is that you don't have a mechanism to constrain the production of just four nucleobases. We don't yet have that mechanism. We do not yet have that mechanism. So what makes you believe that a naturalistic explanation will be found? That is what I said before, a materialism of gaps of the matter. There's never been, you can't point to any example where the explanation has been verified to be non-natural. Give me an example of that. Well, I would say the contrary. It has not been provided any explanation neither of the origin of life, neither do we know how the big bang was caused, neither do we know how biodiversity actually occurred. There are just hypotheses and assertions, but there is no proof. There is no empirical evidence that all this could have happened naturally. Doesn't biodiversity, and somebody in the chat that probably knows more than me on this, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't biodiversity occur because of changes in allele frequencies over time? Like I'm pretty sure I've heard Aaron Rao who knows more than the both of us combined on this. Let's be honest here, say that numerous times that biodiversity is a result of changes in allele frequencies over time, which is literally what the evolutionary process is. By the way, we don't know what happened at the big bang. We don't know what happened in terms of the origin of life, but the thing is all of the natural explanations and all of the work on explaining this through natural mechanisms is light years ahead of while it was designed, because if we just say, oh, well, it was designed that way, then why should we even continue searching? You see, what that does is that stops us from actually getting to the root of what the real causes. Just because we haven't explained it does not in any way imply that it's a non-natural explanation because everything that has already been explained is only ever explained through natural mechanisms. Nobody could point to any example of something that has verifiably been explained that is non-natural, nothing. Well, first of all, science started with Christians that tried to understand how God did create the natural world. So the faith and theism has never been an obstacle for scientific endeavor, quite in the contrary. Yes, but they weren't saying, oh, God did it, like you kind of are in many other people do. They didn't throw their hands and say, oh, God did it, we're done. What they said is, okay, I want to understand what natural mechanisms God would have put in place to allow for this to happen, which is completely different than saying, God did it. Well, first of all, Leophilius, we are talking here about origins. We are talking about history, about events that occurred in the past. So we do not have a methodological operational science to make tests to know exactly what happened in the past. So we can only infer what happened. And we can do that by investigating how things operate today. And then we can infer things of how they could have occurred in the past. And what do we see is not a simple blob of starving thought of cells, but we have found that the complexity, even of the simplest cell is a hugely complex and full of information of machines, of production lines, ribosome factories and the complexity is far greater than anyone would have ever devised 100 years ago. So the question is- Which definitely implies that it's probably natural because when we see humans design things, they don't design them to be overly complex. In fact, we design things to be as simple, yet as effective and efficient as we can, not as complex as we can think about it. If we were going to design a house to be as complex as it could, roofs and floors and walls would all be crooked and turning in different ways to create these overly complex patterns, but then you lose the functionality of the house. So when something is designed, you actually want to look for simplicity alongside efficiency and efficacy and function, not complexity, you're not looking for complexity. And what we see in cells and in genetic mechanics is over complexity. This is way more complex than what an intelligent designer would want. Well, first of all, it doesn't mean anything if you have simplicity and it doesn't work. That's the first point. Exactly. You have to have simplicity, but it still works. We don't really see that. So you can't have life in a simpler way. So that is a good argument of yours. Now, I want to make- We can't have life in a simple way. So then why should we infer that it was designed if the designer probably would have designed it to be simple? Because if you look at how complex cells are and how complex DNA is, and it still makes a lot of mistakes that are very detrimental, I fail to see how that's evidence for it being designed by an intelligence. And even if I were to grant your argument at best, it would only point to some sort of extraterrestrial intelligence having done it, not some omnipotent being. Well, then we would have to ask where did these aliens come from? But that wouldn't be relevant to our discussion, which is strictly on the origins of life, your honor. Yes, so I want to ask you something. I'm a machine designer. Okay. When I have a goal to let's suppose my boss comes to me and says, I want you to design a factory with a specific purpose. What do I do? I said, I sit to the table. I think about how to solve that problem. And then I put it on the drawing table. And then when the specification has been done, all the drawings with all the measures and the numbers and the sizes and the materials and everything else goes to the factory. They're the factory workers. They read my manual. They read the blueprint. And then they actually based on that instructions, they built the machines and the factory. Now I ask you something. Let's suppose that you arrive at the place and you see a factory, a complex factory there. And you have no idea who made that factory. And you have two possible choices. One is that random elements, just with the natural forces like wind and so forth, they joined the materials together. And somehow by unguided random events, this factory was built by long periods of time. Or is it more reasonable to think that some engineers, intelligent people, they made a planning. They had a goal to make this factory. And then they built it upon specifics that were put it on the drawing table. Which of these two hypotheses do you think makes more sense? Well, it would be humans because there's an implicit empirical basis for humans, creating factories. We know that humans create factories. So if we see a building that's making something, we know it was designed by humans. They employ humans. It's ran by humans. But a cell isn't really a factory. A cell is a factory in the same way that a star is a factory. It really isn't. But we call it that because of what it does and how similar it looks to things that we can do. Well, science actually confirms that cells are hyper complex factories. They are chemical factories and they produce all the basic materials, amino acids, phospholipids, hydrocarbons, nucleotides, they are all made in the cell. And then they are joined to produce the proteins which are the machines. Then they're joined together to make production lines. In the end, we see the full production line that we see in humans in the cell. The genetic information is the blueprint and the blueprint is sent transmitted by messenger RNA to the ribosome. The ribosome makes the translation and produces the proteins. They are sent, they are tagged, sent to the place where they fold and then they are put to the place where they actually operate and do their functions. So this is a whole chain that only works if everything is there together. And that is a molecular factory literally made by instructional information which is stored through the genetic code in DNA. So you have a nice analogy here. You have a nice parallel from what humans make and what occurs on a molecular level in cells. Yeah, that's right. It's an analogy and everything that you described is literally just chemistry. You take the chemicals away, none of it would happen. It's chemicals reacting in certain ways that allows them to produce other chemicals. It's not only chemicals. What else is going on? It's also instructional complex codified information which is stored in the DNA. That exists in the form of chemicals. When they say stored in DNA, what they mean is the structure of the chemicals is... It's not like there's some immaterial substance that's inside the molecules or the atoms that tells other molecules what to do. It's literally the way that these compounds are put together is the information. That's it. So when other chemicals react with these chemicals, they will produce other chemicals because that's how chemistry works. This is literally just chemistry. It's chemicals reacting with other chemicals to produce even more chemicals. Well, you have two elements, Leofilius. You have chemistry, as you said, and you have information. You have the DNA molecule which as an analogy would with a hard disk in the computer. And you have the genetic code and you have the information stored through the genetic code in the DNA which instructs literally the cell how to manufacture all what is needed to have a living self-replicating cell. How to make the proteins, the molecular machines, everything in the cell. That's all made through the blueprint which is stored in DNA. So you don't have... Let me ask you a quick question here. You have also information. How does DNA tell these chemicals what to do? Well, we have... Is it through chemistry and chemical reactions? Or are there little like fairies or something saying, hey, we need you to do this? Or is it literally when this chemical meets this chemical, they will react in this particular way that produces particular effects? And see, this seems to be substantiated by the fact that if you screw with the DNA of something, you can get different chemicals produced that can cause bad things to happen. Which seems to imply that this is literally chemicals reacting with other chemicals to produce even more chemicals. That it's literally just chemistry. First of all, you need the right sequence of nucleotides. Why? Because they specify the sequence of amino acids. How? Well, first it is transcribed to RNA... How? Hold on one second. I'm trying to explain you. The information in DNA is transcribed in RNA polymerase to produce messenger RNA. That messenger RNA goes to the ribosome where it is translated to the polymerization of amino acids which then produce functional proteins. These amino acid strings, they fold into 3D form and become functional. And furthermore, many proteins, they don't have only the polymers, the amino acid strands, but they have cofactors. They have, for example, iron-sulfur centers which produce the reactions. And these centers, they are essential for functional proteins. And these cofactors, they are extremely complex to be synthesized in the cell. And they had to be there also when life began. There are many proteins that are only functional if they have these cofactors working in a joint venture together inside of the pocket of the protein. And if you ask me how does the cell synthesize these cofactors, it's extremely complex. You need imported channels in the membrane. You need, for example, for iron to be imported, you have to transfer, you have to chelate it to have it in the right form in order to be able to be imported into the cells. And there are literal manufacturing processes, stepwise processes that use many, many enzymes to have these cofactors produced. And the protein has to be joined together in the right way in order to be functional if it's not folded in the right way. There are machines that disintegrate the parts and recycle them. You have a literal factory which must be fully functional in order to start life. And that is a kind of complexity that you hardly can explain through natural means. Well, we don't know that yet. But so you described the process. That's great. Tell me how the process is actually physically carried out. OK. It's chemistry, isn't it? You would agree that it's literally chemistry when certain chemicals react. I mean, you use the word reaction numerous times. So I'm failing to understand how this is anything other than complex chemical reactions taking place. Well, I told you, in order for the organization to take place to the proteins to be produced, you need matter, you need energy, and you need information. So physical stuff. You need physical stuff. No, information is not physical. No. Really? Can you give me a piece of information that's not physical, that's not produced by or contained within something physical? Well, you can, for example, write a message like Peter on a piece of paper. But that's on a piece of paper, which is physical. I asked for a piece of information that is not produced by or contained within something physical. OK. What is the difference between software and hardware Leofilius? Hardware is what the software is processed on, isn't it? OK. And the software is the software. Would you agree that you can't have the software without the hardware, because then there would be nothing for the software to do, because there isn't a medium for it to be carried out on? Yes, you did both. OK. So it's still based in something physical then, right? But you said information isn't physical. Well, that means that we can have information that has no connection to anything physical whatsoever. I want an example of a piece of information like that. Well, is, for example, a Shakespeare tablet? Is that a product of a mind of someone that wrote it? Or is it a physical? I don't know. What is it? Well, it's both. Well, but the information is generated by a mind. Yeah, which is physical. Yeah, but the information is not something physical, because you can, for example, you can write down Peter. Peter, you can write down that on a piece of paper, or you can score it. And you can store it in something that is physical. Yes, but the medium is not relevant. You can have the information stored on paper or on a hard disk. It is still the same information. It depends on the specification and on the complexity and on language. And that is not physical. It is mind. Well, I mean, information is physical, because if you don't have physical things, you don't have information about anything. Information is about something. Information is not an objective feature of reality. It only exists when you have a mind like humans there to derive knowledge about what something is. That's the information. So when you look at a cup and you state, well, I can hold liquid in this cup, the information about it being a cup only applies when there's a mind there to apply it. So given that, information doesn't actually exist. We invented information as a way of quantifying the aspects of what we see, which is entirely physical. If there was no physical reality, there would be no information because there wouldn't be anything for there to be information about. So information is entirely physical. Well, abstract numbers exist independently if there is a physical medium or not. And information is- Yeah, numbers are abstractions of physical things. Hold on one sec. I just want to give him a chance to finish. What we see in genes is our blueprints. This is instructional complex information which instructs how to build proteins. And that sequence is not random. And we do not know of another mechanism than a mind able to generate blueprints and information to produce other things with specificity and function. Well, we see that in DNA. So, and nobody's proven that DNA has come from a mind. So let's make here a calculation. We have 500,000 nucleotides. That's the minimum functional cell which must be sequenced in a very specific complex order in order to have the product which is a set of about 400 functional proteins. If the sequence is not correct, you cannot have functional proteins. Now, how do we explain that correct sequence? So when you say sequence, you're talking about the nucleotide sequence in DNA. Yes, correct. Okay, and you said that if that's not correct, i.e. that the chemicals get messed up, then you won't get the right results. Yes, correct. Okay, so that means that it's all based on chemistry. Wrong chemicals, wrong outcome. Well, the question, Leofilius, is where did that specificity, that blueprint, that instructional complex information stored in DNA come from? If you may- It is, the information isn't in the DNA. The information is the DNA. It's the structure of the DNA is the information. So DNA doesn't contain information. DNA is information. And DNA is also physical, so. The question is, what generates the instructional complex information, the specific sequence necessary to have a functional product, product to which is a minimal proteome of about 400 proteins? The structure of the nucleotides in the DNA. How they're structured is the code. Yeah, that definitely is. It is the sequence. You need a right. It's the order of the chemicals in DNA, the sequence, how they're ordered, what order are these four nucleotides in? If you change that order, you will change what you produce, indicating that this is literally all chemical, complex chemical reactions taking place. So that if you change the chemicals, you will change the outcome. That's literally just chemistry. Well, where does the sequence come from that is necessary to have functionality? I don't think it comes from anywhere. Those were the sequences that best produced whatever was trying to happen or allowed for the right results to be produced. So it won out against all the other forms. So let me give you an example. You have 500 numbers specifically lined up from one to 500. And you have 500 numbers just randomly chaotically next to that lineup. Which one was intelligently put there and which was probably the product of chance? So there was just a little bit of cutout. Can I have you repeat that one more time for me, please? Okay, when you see a sequence of numbers from one to 500, do you think that sequence was the product of chance or of someone that put that sequence there? So like if I just saw the numbers from one to 500 in order that you're asking? Yes, exactly. Well, considering numbers are abstractions of physical things, you couldn't have numbers without humans. Whatever we're using the numbers to describe. I just want to ask you the sequence that you see there from one to 500. And someone asks you, what do you think? How was that sequence generated? Was it by chance or was it by someone that put that sequence there? Well, what is the sequence describing? Like is it one to 500 trees? Is it? No, no, no. Because if we're talking about just numbers, those are abstractions of reality by the human mind. Yes, but what I mean is- If you just saw five numbers, one to 500 just written on a piece of paper and somebody asked you, how do you think those numbers got written down there? I would obviously say, well, somebody wrote them down. But that's because we know numbers are written by humans. Yes. We don't know that DNA is created by humans or anything. No, I ask you, what is the chance that that sequence from one to 500 occurs by random chance? Let me give you a chance to respond, Leo, but do want to mention in just a short bit, we will be moving to Q and A, folks. So gentlemen, maybe at some point in the next few minutes, without it being like an actual closing statement, so like not a short speech, but just during the conversation, if one of you is willing to defer to the other on giving the last word, awesome. Otherwise, I will bring us to a close in about five minutes. Or I should say- Okay, so before we close, Autangelot, there is a question that I didn't want to ask you. So I'm assuming you know what exons and introns are? Yes. Or you've heard of them? So then you know that during the creation of premRNA, pre-messenger RNA, the introns have to be cut out so that the exons can be spliced together. But the thing here is that those introns are transcribed into the prem RNA to then be cut back out. Why would an intelligent designer design it that way? Also, before you answer, I want to mention that due to this process, this can cause numerous genetic mutations that lead to an innumerable number of ailments and diseases and disorders that we see in humans today. Why would an intelligent designer have created a process that's inherently going to lead to disorders and dysfunction? Okay, I believe that life and biology is also driven by entropy and that probably explains what you are asking. But what you would have to ask as well is if you see a cell phone and the numbers are screwed or something, would you say because the numbers are screwed or the test attitude doesn't work well or something like that, would you say that the cell phone was not intelligently designed? Well, of course not. But we have an implicit empirical basis for cell phones being designed, not just intelligently designed but designed specifically by humans. There's no implicit empirical basis for DNA having been designed. So it's like saying, well, it's like me saying to you, well, I saw a unicorn today and you say, well, I don't believe that because I mean, why would I? And I say, well, if I told you I saw a dog, you would believe me then and you would say, well, of course I would. But that's because there's an implicit empirical basis for dogs existing. There isn't for unicorns, which is why if I tell you I see a dog, people are likely to believe me. If I tell you I saw a unicorn or I saw Santa Claus, people aren't going to believe me because there's no implicit empirical basis for that. Well, the spliceosome exists in eukaryotes and its splices. For example, the human genome has about 20,000 genes and the spliceosome takes each of these genes and can produce about 300 different protein species. And that information that you need on the highest level and you have to ask what came first, the spliceosome, the machinery that does actually the splicing or the information that instructs the genome and the machinery where to splice the gene product at the right place to have over 300 different protein species. And you can tell me, well, evolution explains it, but evolution doesn't produce information. Evolution degrades information. Oh, well, that remains to be seen because I've actually sat down with geneticists and asked them that question that whole. It sounds like that mutations are only ever deleterious. They're never beneficial, which is straightforwardly not true. This whole genetic entropy, well, it's all degrading which is not true. There's no such thing as the term genetic entropy. I was listening to a debate. It was an older one between, I think it was T-jump and John Maddox and I actually looked to that term up and the only thing I could find is work by John Sanford who's a noted intelligent design proponent. No professional literature on that at all. Well, I can provide you the papers but we know that genetic mutations, natural selection does not by far produce the complexity and multicellular organisms and organismal form. But that is of course another topic. And I am more than happy to discuss that in another eventual opportunity. Thank you, gentlemen. I really appreciate you both and we will get it started for the Q&A. So thanks so much for your questions, folks. And as mentioned, I have linked the speakers below. So if you want to hear more, well, you have your chance right now. It's very convenient. And now jumping into these questions. Thanks so much, folks. From Second Best Bob, appreciate it says, oh no, and I hardly ever got your love, James. You have plenty of my love, Second Best Bob. Okay, next up, thanks. Happy dude, thanks for your super chat says, thanks for all your hard work and persisting for this debate, guys. I thank Otangelo and Leofilia so much for their patience. This is originally gonna be last night and then it was originally gonna be, but I didn't have a backup plan so when we couldn't get Zoom to work, I- I couldn't get Zoom to work. Most of the delay was my fault, people. So I apologize for that. I appreciate you saying that but I appreciate you being patient with me. But yes, I, we're very glad it happened. It's been a fun time. And also thank you for your super chat. Brenda, glad to hear from you. Says, oh, Tangelo, do you have a non-argument from ignorance argument? Well, an argument of ignorance is when you try to tap something that we don't know with an explanation. But in regards of abiogenesis, there have been made experiments for over 70 years and what science tried to find, which is an explanation of how life could have emerged naturally, that explanation has not been encountered. And rather to come closer to close that gap, it is becoming bigger and bigger. I just, I just wanted to jump in here really quick because this was a point that I was making. So an argument for ignorance is when somebody tries to use the conclusion as an, comes to a conclusion or an explanation for something based off of what they don't know hence to turn ignorant rather than what they do know. And we all know you can't come to a conclusion based on information you don't have. You can only come to conclusions based on information you do have. And we have no information not just from origin of life research but literally name a topic, any topic. All the explanations given for anything within that subject are natural. There's never been a non-natural explanation for something. Why should we assume that now? To state that, well, we don't know how this works so it must be something non-natural is an argument for ignorance because we don't know how it happened. So you can't say you know that it was non-natural. Well, I want to give an example. If you ask someone to look in the wallet if there is coins and that person watched looks in the wallet and doesn't find any coins then it is not an argument from ignorance to say there is no money in the wallet. It's an informed conclusion of the negative that there is no money in the wallet. So it's not an argument of ignorance to say a biogenesis doesn't work and alternative explanation is the better explanation. I hate to say that we have to keep going. We must keep moving. Just because we have a lot of questions which thank you for folks. Stupid horror energy makes her appearance. She is in the house and says, isn't Lynn Margulis the scientist who originated the now experimentally verified theory of endosymbiosis? I think so, but when I was doing my research for this debate, I heard that name come up. I think he is, but I don't have the knowledge to definitively say yes. Yes, yes, she is the person, but she in her career also opposed evolution as a satisfactory explanation of biodiversity. Gotcha. And thanks for, where did I just see? I could have sworn I just saw logical plausible probable. Why are you beating up? Here we go. I was hoping he'd drop a question. Oh, he's like, he just banned Carl's Top Mod. Why a logical plausible probable? They didn't say anything. That wasn't even close to hate speech. Did I miss something? Then Carl's Top Mod was unhidden by Toga. Thanks for that, Toga. What is your problem, Hadox? Just going after people. He's a sharpshooter. He left the chat too, because I couldn't tag him. Well, a stupid horror energy thinks for your other question says, amino acids and the cognate codons have physiochemical affinities for each other, so it wouldn't have been random. Exactly. That the whole, well, it did these random processes. It's an objection for otangelo. Just make no sense. So we gotta give otangelo a chance to try to challenge back. Well, the codons and the amino acids, there is an arbitrary selection that cannot be explained by natural means. Why do 64 codons specify just 20 amino acids? It could be any different setup. Why just this one? And that is one of the things that science is unable to explain. There is an arrangement and a setup which is best explained by an intelligent mind which made that setup and did make that translation system. You don't see a translation book and say, oh, it occurred by chance. Every book that translates from English to Chinese, for example, was made by intelligence. And the same is in the ribosome, the translation from the genetic information to the amino acid alphabet. It is arbitrary. And such things are best explained by design. Just a quick, it's gonna be less than five seconds, but I really would just wanna say something really quickly. I said less than five seconds. Science hasn't explained it yet, doesn't mean it can't ever explain it. Gotta give you the last word if you'd like otangelo. Otherwise, we must move to the next one. Oh, go ahead. Next, Stupid Horror Energy says, they were probably ribocytes cells made completely of RNA. Otangelo. I disagree. In 2016, there came out a science paper in Nature Magazine which tried to figure out what would be the composition of the smallest cell. And they came up with a genome of about 500,000 nucleotides, 438 proteins. And then they put a whole list of things that are required for life to start. And that cannot be just composed by RNA. You need the four basic building blocks of life in order to construct life permitting cells. Next, Otangelo, I'm sorry. Athena Goddess of Wisdom, thanks for your question says, Otangelo should do some research. They were able to create RNA bases in a lab and then links a study to nature.com. I also cited that my intro but I might have cut out before anybody heard it. So I just wanted to throw that out there. Well, I have a video on the supposed prebiotic synthesis of RNA. And these experiments, they are all guided and the materials that they use, they are all poor materials that do not exist on prebiotic earth. So these experiments, they say absolutely nothing about the real scenario back then. Gotcha. Next, thanks so much for your question. This one comes from Andrew Handelsman. Thanks for your question said, had to slow the super chats, wife saw the MC Bill. Gotcha, thanks for your support, Andrew. Appreciate it, your persistence. We'll prevail, okay, thanks for your question. Stupid horror energy says, RNA has been synthesized in the lab. See the paper by Poner at all, 2009. Yeah, I also, Martin Ferris- It's for Otangelo, it's a challenge to Otangelo. And no, I disagree with that. They may have encountered a solution for one step, but they didn't find a solution to build entire RNA in the lab by random chemical reactions. That's not true. Gotcha. And thanks for your question. This one comes in from Dwayne Burke, nasty guy. He's pulling a Steven's Dean today says, hi, I'm James Coons. You may see me on Tinder. Don't forget to like the pics of me in my Speedos. If you think I'm all right, make sure you swipe right. Thank you for that, Dwayne. That's funny, it's been so long since I've worn a Speedo, folks. Next to yoga, thanks for your question says, how come God made so many planets, Otangelo? Otangelo, are you just standing really still or are you frozen? I can't tell. I think he's trying to initiate a staring contest with me over stream yards. No, okay. Well, he'll come back, folks, believe me. We've made it through this before. We're going to make it through again. And while we're waiting for our dearest friend, Otangelo. There he is. Oh, perfect. I'm sorry, I was just disconnected. The battery of my cell phone went out. No problem. Please ask again. You betcha, gladly. This question is from, let's see. Tioga says, how come God made so many planets, Otangelo? Excuse me, I didn't understand the question. Why did God make so many planets rather than just Earth? Like we've got these planets in our solar system, for example, without life, apparently. Yeah, it's fun to do it, no idea. Can I just play devil's advocate really quick here? So if Jupiter did not exist, meteor impacts, asteroid impacts, I should say, on Earth would be about a thousand times more than they are now. So I think most of us would argue that the other planets actually contributed to the development of life, just to play devil's advocate. If we are talking about the solar system, then yes. But the question was generally because we don't have only planets on the solar system, but in other galaxies, eventually, and so on. So I thought that was the question. But of course, the planetary system is very balanced, and the planets, they have to be there where they are in order to have that stability. Gotcha, and thank you very much. Let's see, our next question comes from Wolf, with a Chinese symbol in front of it that I have not yet learned the meaning of, says software is physical, it's electrons on a circuit board. Yep. Well, that is the hardware. Gotcha, and C.S., thanks for your super chat, says, loving these debates, James, cheers. Well, thank you, I love them as well, and I'm passing along your love to the debaters, because the debaters are the lifeblood of the channel, they make it fun, we love you guys, and Stupid Horror Energy also loves you guys, because she says, what about Rubisco, a dumb machine that can't effectively differentiate between CO2 and O2, and constantly makes mistakes. Well, actually, Rubisco is the most abundant protein in life, without Rubisco, there would be no life, and science papers, they have found out that actually the distinguishing the two molecules is a fantastic feat of engineering, and Rubisco is actually not slow as people think, and more advanced studies, they have investigated this, and they have come to the conclusion that Rubisco is actually optimized, and it couldn't have been designed in a better manner, but Rubisco is essential for life, it's an essential protein in photosynthesis, so that is another fantastic evidence of intelligent design. Gotcha, and thanks so much, appreciate this next question comes in from, this is P. Barn says, is James' water bottle really big, or is James just a tiny alpha? It's a beta! So here's my water bottle, Aero had a proud sponsor of modernated bait, not really, but uh. I thought you were pretty tall, James, I saw you in when Arun Ra, and I can't remember the other guy when you guys had your in-person debate, and Arun Ra's a big guy, he's pretty tall, and you seemed almost as tall as him, so. Oh, he is a tall man, I love, you know the funny thing about Arun, is I have to be honest, Arun definitely looks almost like a biker, you know he has like, he has a presence, but he is like one of the more authentic personable people, when you get to meet him, and he's just like, hey I'm Arun, you know like, it's just like, I, it's you get why people really, so many people really love him, and I'm just like, he's a very, if you meet him in person someday folks, he's just a really pleasant fellow, so Lily Arun, thanks for your question slash Super Chat, saying in response, apparently to Dwayne Super Chat, Lily Arun says, I swiped right, thank you, I appreciate that support, Lily, I always, like I say, Lily Arun, secretly Bob the postal worker from Alabama, so thank you for that, second best Bob, thank you for your super sticker, appreciate it, really do appreciate the support, we're excited folks, I have to tell you, but we're gonna transition into the standard questions, we're gonna read some of those and, but wanna say, and then we, thank you Joshua, oh it was a thank you sticker from second best Bob, thank you and thanks to the speakers, thanks Joshua Larson for your question says, Bra, what is Swedish, permit the frog? What? Next, I'm confused, but appreciate it, and next, the questions that we're gonna get into the standard questions, but I wanna say, we definitely, what was it? Keep getting, oh look at this folks, if you're watching live, don't worry, you'll be able to see the live chat afterwards, logical plausible probable in the live chat, oh I keep getting an error on Super Chat James, I wish I could Super Chat, please let Leo know, let's have a debate, logical plausible probable, you were just in here like sharp shooting people, you just hid, who was it? Like Carl's Mod, and then you just bolted man, you just disappeared from the chat, did you not know that, oh my Super Chat's not working, but I'm sorry, I love you John, I'm teasing, Wolf thanks for your Super Chat's that electrons are not hardware, hardware is specifically the board and the wiring, ask any computer engineer such as me, also it's kanji, oh okay, this must be the meaning of it, oh okay yeah, so you're saying the meaning of the Chinese symbol is kanji, which means, I think they're saying it means Kiro black, I don't know what Kiro means though, come on, throw me a bone here, okay next, what was the, oh yeah, so if you would like to respond to Otangelo you can. Well you can give a meaning to any form, that's the symbol, so I don't know what the point is, there is a clear differentiation between hardware and software. You got it, I'm so sorry, it's not you, it's just logical plausible, probable AKA John Maddox is in the chat, oh what are you talking about, I don't know what you're talking about, like a logical plausible probable, I don't know maybe it was somebody else, but someone with the exact same username was just in the live chat and they were a mod, so I mean maybe I gave them a wrench at some time, but they just like, that's what I'm talking about, they blocked somebody like Carl's mod, or yeah their name was Carl's mod and someone hid them, that was, it said you hid them John, you're playing dumb with us now, okay, so yeah we love you John, I am not sure what you're up to, but next question, very excited, so thank you so much for your question, top dog Shaddick, appreciate all your questions, you've been patient, their question was, correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't have the name on here, but I think this is yours, they said life is so complex because it's an unintelligent, designs are relatively simple in comparison, I made that point actually, well as I explained, you need to have a minimal complexity in order to create life, so that is a nonsensical argument, the complexity in life points to design and not random mechanisms, gotcha and let's see, oh man, logical possible probable, you just keep on going with it man, you just like, what were you talking about, okay thanks for your other question, top dog Shaddick says, could you be misunderstanding Otangelo nature as an intelligent designer, why do you think science is wrong and your version is right? Well because nature, which englobes the universe, the universe at the beginning and therefore it has to have a cause, gotcha, we actually don't know if the universe had a beginning, it probably didn't because time is tenseless, but that's a different discussion, still waiting for somebody to debate me on that subject, gotcha and by the way, just wait, no, Bruce waiting, sorry Bruce, I just pinned your message, I meant to add moderator, I'm gonna add you, and same, you know we never think the mods enough, I wanna say thank you mods really do appreciate you, we only have one rule, Bruce as you are a new mod, is that thanks so much if you would only, we only delete hate speech and once in a blue moon we'll have someone try to dox people, so those are the only things we delete, if somebody's being brutally, if they're trying to harass someone, we just, we usually give them a warning at least, that's something we'll at least warn them and then if you keep doing it and we're like, all right, well, we warned you, we can hide you or block you if you want, and otherwise, please don't block them, we call that pulling a John Maddox, so it's never gonna call it now, so John, I love you buddy, thank you, oh yeah, Athena got us a wisdom in warfare, said will Leo be available for an after show? Sure, I think that's the same person that asked for my email, so I'm assuming they have it, they would just have to send me the link to it. Gotcha, and thanks so much, appreciate your, oh, we got a, I think there was a new super chat I missed, sorry folks, and this one comes in from, I think it was, oh, we're good there, and then I think did I read this one? Yeah, we got that one, okay, so want to say thank you so much, folks, for this, it's been a long enough field battle, but it was an epic debate, so thank you Otangelo and Leo so much for hanging out with us today. No problem, can I make a quick comment, this doesn't relate to the debate, but I just wanted to let everybody know that James will be putting all of the links that I pulled my information from into the description of this video for anybody that wants to check them out. I understand I cut out during my intro, but all of the links will be in the order of how I set up my intro, so if you wanna look at the information that I'm using, you are free to check that out. I also heard John Maddox challenge me to a debate. I would be more than happy to do that, but I know James, you were trying to set up a debate, tag team debate on the Kalam argument. I would prefer to do that one first if we can, just so I don't do the same subject back to back, but if not, that's fine. Gotcha, thank you, and Otangelo, any last words? No, I thank you very much for the second opportunity to be on your channel, James, and whenever another opportunity shows up, I'm at your disposal. Thank you very much. Thanks for your kindness, and thanks for your grace with me, and so it's been a true pleasure. Thanks for your patience as a, yeah, folks, if there's ever a scheduling, if a scheduling ever gets bungled, it's probably that I double booked or something like that. Converse last night, I was like at six, I sent him a text, I was like, you ready to mod? I can't do it tonight, and he's like, what? I thought you said that there wasn't a debate tonight. I made plans. So we wanna say thanks to Converse, thanks so much to Tioga. I think she might still be in the chat. We're excited, folks. We're pumped about some future debates. Tioga is helping set up. It's gonna be epic. So with that, hope you have a great, whoa, wait, folks, it's already 325 here, which means it's five, oh my gosh, it's already 525 where a lot of you are on the East Coast. We will be back tonight with Vegan Gains, the king of veganism for the first time. We've had him before, but we've never had him on his trademark topic. He's going to be debating on the very topic of veganism, which is his specialty, and is against CAS. So that should be a good one. And then, as mentioned on the bottom right of your screen in that little promo poster, we will be having a Flat Earth debate tomorrow night. It's been a while since we've had one. Athena got us a wisdom in warfare. Thanks for your last minute, super chat. I said, I have to show on my channel at 5.30. So let's see if we can. 5.30 Eastern time, Central time, Pacific time, Mountain time. That's a great question. Athena got us a wisdom in warfare. Let us know. I would guess maybe like 5.30 as in two minutes from now, but I could be wrong. Oh, logical, plausible, probable, here it is. He says, modern day debate, am I blocked? Somebody, it must have been because I was trying to drive in super chat. Oh, John, this is worse. Tell John to get off his phone while he's driving. That's not safe. It just got worse. Well, don't worry, John, it's okay. You don't, don't, don't chat. Don't do the live chat. Yeah, don't super chat. It's okay. Come on, John, come on now. It's a, we weren't, we weren't really mad. We just love giving you, we just love throwing our poop at you, man. And then let's see. Oh yeah. What do you guys think? I'm, I'm just waiting for Athena's got a, okay, she says, or he says, they tell me it's a he. I didn't know that. But Eastern Standard Time, 5.30. So in one minute. So we better let you guys go and yes. Thanks so much, folks. It was always fun. We hope you keep something up. Thanks again, James. And to you, Altenjalo, for debating me again. It was a really, really good round two. Yeah. I hope to see you on the channel more. Sure. Thank you very much, Leo Philius. And see you again, eventually. Who knows? Yep. You bet. Thanks everybody. Take care and we'll hopefully see you later tonight, just a few hours away. You bet.