 Welcome everybody to modern day debate. I'm your moderator today. Justin tonight's topic a Biogenesis on trial going first with their opening statement will be the team of Grayson and Amy Grayson. You've chosen to Start off. So the floor is all yours Hey, everyone, Merry Christmas Eve Eve. My name is Grayson My YouTube channel is called based theory and I have a degree in biochemistry And I've worked in a structural biology lab So while I'm not an expert on this subject. I am not a lay person either So I'm gonna go ahead and I'm gonna share my screen. I have a presentation prepared and You got it Okay, cool. I'll start my time. So Tonight we're gonna be talking about a biogenesis which attempts to answer the question of how did life begin? So to give a very short answer to that the answer is we don't know yet There is no current consensus working theory of a biogenesis, but we do have several naturalistic Hypotheses which I will be arguing tonight that this is the best possible Answer given the current data. So let's look at an example to see what I'm talking about in my reasoning Say you have two people that come across a volcanic eruption and they don't know what is causing this One person says it must be a supernatural miracle caused by the goddess Pele and the other person says I don't know the cause. Let's develop and test naturalistic hypotheses about it Which person gave the better answer? Our opponents tonight will be arguing that the first person gave the better answer because Between the two of them that was the only person that provided an answer to it They said definitively. This is a supernatural miracle caused by the goddess Pele They gave an answer and they will say that that is far superior than I don't know yet but obviously That is not the case the second person gave the superior answer because they had the more Scientific answer their answer followed just like science follows methodological naturalism where they have come up they've created naturalistic hypotheses that are falsifiable and testable and In reality, this is the method that we use to actually discover what causes volcanic eruptions and I will argue that we can rely on methodological naturalism because of its superior track record as coming up with the greatest most reliable Method of generating knowledge about our natural world throughout all of human history So just to get our bearings about what are some current open questions in science similar to a biogenesis? I'm gonna list two examples here the impenba effect and quantum gravity Both of these are similar to a biogenesis in that there is no consensus working theory to explain them The impenba effect is talking about why hot water freezes faster than cold water and quantum gravity is just gravity on a small scale Would it be logical to conclude that because there's no working theory and there's only hypotheses for these two Phenomenon that it must be that there's a supernatural miracle that occurs in the freezing of water or in quantum gravity No, of course not. We just have competing hypotheses that we must empirically test So what are those hypotheses for a biogenesis? Well, here's a brief overview I don't have enough time to go in detail on these but RNA world was the most popular hypothesis RNA peptide world is gaining a lot of momentum currently. There's other There's metabolism first iron sulfur world There's protein first models of which a subsection is my own personal favorite hypothesis for a biogenesis called the amyloid world Hypothesis, but there's a video about that on my channel with more details But I don't have enough time to go into details here They all of these hypotheses follow this same general schema, however going from messy chemistry to systems of autocatalytic chemical reactions, these are Self-replicating chemical systems and when you have a self replicating chemical system that has heredity Variation and differential fitness you have all the ingredients for Darwinian evolution to take place which complexity and life naturally arises from so Tonight our opponents will be trying to make the case that a biogenesis is impossible They will say that it's because of probability or complexity or homo chirality. They'll have all these reasons So let's go one by one and debunk these for probability Probability is a mechanism dependent branch of math so all probability Calculations necessarily must assume a mechanism So this is why you can't just look at an end product and say what's the count the probability that we get this product? Because you don't know the mechanism there could be catalysts that you are not accounting for So if you don't have a mechanism like we do not have a mechanism for a biogenesis Then you actually cannot calculate the probability It's nonsensical to do so because you can't account for things like catalysts that change the probability dependent on the mechanism Look at complexity so we have known since the 60s and 70s that complexity can arise from noise we have understood Self-organization in various fields from physics to chemistry biology cybernetics computer science thermodynamics economics Linguistics, etc. We understand how self-organization works We also have complexity theory that explains how complexity arises naturally from edge of chaos systems Non-equilibrium thermodynamics and feedback loops. There's even groundbreaking work happening on complexity like this paper I have here on screen from physicist Leonard Susskind at Stanford showing that as a natural consequence of the second law of thermodynamics computational complexity must necessarily always increase in the universe if we talk about irreducible complexity we have empirically verified that irreducibly complex systems can arise from evolution this here is my favorite example just because it's relevant to this topic this study took one self-replicating RNA and watched it evolve into an irreducibly complex network of five new lineages and these five were codependent if you remove one of the five the system no longer is able to replicate so it's We watched irreducible complexity evolve naturally So we know that complexity irreducible complexity is not a criteria of design and can arise naturally I also have all these about homo chirality We don't really have time to get to them But here are the citations showing that there are an ansio selective mechanisms that are natural that can explain How homo chirality happens from amyloid formation to chiral induced spin selectivity and beyond here are my citations Here are several citations for how the building blocks of life here I don't have time to cover all of them But I want them on screen just so people can pause and look at the citations themselves for how things like RNA and polypeptides can arise and then here's just Summarizing empirical evidence for autocatalytic chemistry that has evolutionary properties from everything from lipids to sugars to peptides Etc. I don't have enough time to get into any of the details. I'll pass on the rest of the time to Amy. Thank you All right. Thank you, Grayson. Amy if you're ready, you may go ahead Hello everyone, my name is Amy Newman. I'm a professor of information systems a teacher a counter-apologist and comedian I also do skeptic comedy where we hope to have fun With my co-host James W at youtube.com slash Amy Newman I want to thank Justin for modding Grayson for being my partner and sound and Taylor for coming to talk so a Biogenesis on trial or rather the origin of life, but it could be a Biogenesis on trial runs because currently a biogenesis is a hypothesis or ineducated guess with multiple hypotheses right now Trying to explain the full picture Which may have been an event or many events Over four billion years ago Scientists know that life first rose fast soon after the planet came into formation We have an extensive fossil record showing a gradual evolution of organisms with more Complex organisms on top and a slow gradual descent towards simplicity We see this the further we go back in time and the further we go in the geological column That makes up the earth However, at a certain point the process to fossilize becomes harder and harder Without hard bodies the earliest life Surviving is few and far between thus we have to do what science does best Experimentation in the early 1950s Miller and Yuri did such an experiment where they simulated conditions of the early earth They filled a glass bubble with water methane ammonia and hydrogen or chemicals found on the surface of our planet Then they use an electric current to simulate lightning as a source of energy It wasn't long before they found developing amino acids or the basic building blocks of life Like Darwin with evolution Miller and Yuri began a field of exploration into how life began Which is now the hot place of study for many biologists since then we have also found Some amino acids and other organic compounds inside meteorites Life or the process by which it come about is more resilient than we first thought Could life have come here adrift in outer space something scientists called panspermia Maybe it's not impossible And at least the ingredients for life we know have fallen on to our surface Finally, we often hear from detractors of evolution and especially a biogenesis that life could not have simply Arise a risen from chance But the environment for life to arise on earth Make sense We are in the circumstellar habitable zone Along with Venus and Mars a fancy term for the band around a sun in which things aren't on fire or freezing These Goldilocks zones allow for things like liquid water Water is in itself a little weird freezing from top to bottom and works as a great solvent allowing chemicals to mix Speaking of which carbon as John Stewart would say is the slut of the periodic table Able to make more combinations than all others combined So it's no surprise that this is where life forms a planet filled with carbon water and at a decent temperature range not some frozen half planet or melting gas furnace So a Biogenesis on trial fine Then help us Get in the lab Especially if proving your way of life is what you're putting forward There are currently many competing hypotheses One could overtake the other or even combine together to become a falsifiable theory or framework of facts Instead of the two strand double helix Maybe it was a one strand RNA world which came from an environment ripe with organic materials Maybe it was something else The data is being collected and so far all the answers point to naturalistic causes on our earth over four billion years ago Thank you All right, thank you Amy With that we're going to pass the things over to Sal and Taylor forgive me. I don't remember which one of you two would like to go first I can go first. Okay Your opponents went over by about 60 seconds, so okay, you will have an additional 60 seconds You may go when you're ready. All right, I'll start now I'm Salvador Cordova. I am a Molecular biophysics researcher. I've recently been accepted into a doctoral program and by a molecular engineering I have five degrees biology physics from Johns Hopkins University and Three engineering related degrees If I could share my screen and For seven years I worked with famous geneticist Cornell researcher John C. Sanford who has his invention in the Smithsonian Museum of Natural American history and Dr. Sanford Used to be an atheist. He is now a Christian and a creationist Those are some of his publications. He and I published recently in springer nature If this is in university library shelves now and recently I was published in Oxford University Press the Issue is we're having all these experiments and this is a nice cartoon This scientist says just think as soon as I produce life in the test tube I will disprove that absurd idea that intelligent that an intelligent being was needed to do it in the beginning And I'll repeat that theme over and over so this is from a Origin of life Research journal by Steve Benner. Steve Benner is an advocate of Origin of life. He's not a creationist, but listen to what he says and The picture from Raiders of the Lost Ark there kind of illustrates his point so beautifully The asphalt paradox an enormous amount of empirical data have established as a rule That organic systems given energy and left to themselves devolve Devolve to uselessly complex mixtures as faults. This is experiment by the way Theory that enumerates and then theory theory that enumerates small molecule space as well as structure theory and chemistry Can be construed to regard this devolution this devolution a necessary consequence of theory Thus even if we solve the asphalt paradox the water paradox the information need paradox in the single biopolymer paradox We still must mitigate or set aside chemical theory that makes destruction That makes destruction not biology the natural outcome of our already magical chemical system And when I was going through school They were advertising the Uri Miller experiment of 1952 and showing claiming this all the origin of life That was kind of the consensus even in the 1960s. They're optimistic They were going to explain this without appeal to special creation But then Francis Crick in the 70s So he says an honest man armed with all the knowledge available to us now Could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears at the moment to almost Be a miracle so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going now He didn't say it's a miracle. He thought he said look it does it the look does look kind of complicated But it got so bad that he suggested the solution would be space aliens And here it is from scientific American Francis Crick Lesiorgyral proposed that life on earth was the result of a deliberate infection designed Like intelligently designed by aliens who had purposely fled mother nature sea to create a new home in the sun Crick repeatedly addressed the question of the origin of life between 1971 and 1988 Come now to the National Institutes of Health Pitchered here is Eugene Coonan one of the top evolutionary Biologists on the planet in my opinion. He's the top one of the people there pictured was also my professor at the NIH Coonan had this to say he dabbled into the origin of life. He suggests the answer is Multiverse so we go from nearly solving it almost solve them to space aliens now to multiverses The only thing we don't have is multiverses with space aliens Now with all these experiments that Bracen is expected to site by the way he totally mischaracterized. He straw man my position before even Knowing what it was. He said these are all the arguments. I'm going to make that's not exactly true I just need to call him out on that but Simon common Morris said many of the experiments designed to explain one or other step in the origin of life or either a tenuous relevance to any believable prebiotic setting or involve an Experimental rig in which the hand of the researcher for all intents and purposes becomes the hand of God And in fact in the prestigious nature communications famous chemist Clemens reichert actually Talks about the hand of God dilemma. He says look at all this investigator interference That is generating all these supposed results and advancement. He's saying that's totally illegitimate That's totally illegitimate. This is like looking. I mean, this is me saying here looking at a 747 and say Hey, look, we had all these machines build it and then we'll say this proves that it had been by all by itself That is so illegitimate and he's calling them out on it Calling them out on it Now talking about God here are the laws of nature a good representation of this and Professor at Johns Hopkins at my university said the mental universe you could look this up He suggests that the laws of quantum mechanics imply there's God and so This is from quantum mechanics FJ Bell and Fonte we thus see how quantum theory requires the existence of God Of course, it does not ascribe to God defined in this way Any of the specific additional qualities that various existence Religious doctrines ascribed to God acceptance of such doctrines as a matter of faith and Belief and we can go into that more so the rhetorical question is you know How impossible how improbable does something have to be before you accept that it's a miracle if you say no That's fine, but let's not pretend that a biogenesis is moving forward It's moving backward and the goalposts are moving and I'd like to yield my time to Taylor. Thank you All right Taylor whenever you're ready. Don't forget to unmute and the floor is all yours Okay. Yeah, um I'll be much shorter, but Yeah, whenever there's no working theory to a theory it could be time to reconsider it and with a biogenesis all the different hypotheses and Theories of how it could work have been debunked and disproven So I believe that it is definitely time to reconsider it as normally theory should be testable Especially if you're giving a naturalistic explanation to something because it's observable Then you need to be able to give an actual Working naturalistic explanation and theory to it. You can't just propose a theory That's not observable or workable and that there is detrimental downfalls in each aspect of it So normally whenever we have theories we test them and whenever we find out that they aren't working We reconsider them but not with a biogenesis because time and time again And we have tested these theories and found detrimental problems to them and we still continue to teach it So I just believe that it is time to reconsider back in the 1920s was when Alexander open and JBS Halide were proposing that chemicals could be responsible for the origin of life and this is the 1920s so out of all of these decades of research we have actually went backwards in progress to What now where we have no theory and we have more detrimental problems than we could even imagine Everywhere you turn in theory of a biogenesis. There's a detrimental problem There's actually no component of it that is working. So I believe that it is time to Move forward and reconsider other possible explanations. But yeah, thank you And with that that's the opening statements for both sides So once again, let me tell you guys my name is Justin. I'm your moderator tonight James as usual. He's out there in the world. He's watching. He's supporting everyone here right now But we're gonna show our support right back to him by hitting that like and subscribe button on the channel. All right This debate is a biogenesis on trial and here's what we're going to do. So Our debaters would like to have two-minute intervals opportunity having an open floor for them to speak without interruption and Unless someone Disagrees with me. I believe if a biogenesis is on trial and if that's Grayson and Amy Defending that position That's Sal and Taylor should probably have the first two minutes. Would I be wrong and thinking that's a Great way to engage that They can go if they would like just to respond to our opening statements. Yeah, cuz they just went and yeah I don't I don't disagree with that either. I just felt like Maybe they would have the questions first. But yeah, if you guys much like anything in my life I'm good with either way all right then Go ahead Grayson or Amy the first two minutes is yours if I may respond to some of those openings I Didn't actually hear many reasons for us to think that a biogenesis is impossible I heard that even if we do a biogenesis in a lab that only proves that intelligent humans are necessary for it But I find that to be fallacious reasoning for example If you were to create snowflakes in a lab Have you proved that a human designer is necessary to create snowflakes and they can't form naturally? No, of course not The reasoning doesn't hold up at all. I heard a biogenesis was not moving forward I don't know how anyone can claim that's the case because like Aren't a world predicted ribozymes then we found ribozymes We've found catalysts for polypeptide bond formation. That was in 2004 with carbonyl sulfide We've found just like literally amyloid world hypothesis that I brought up just became a hypothesis in the mid to 2010s like in 2018 was the paper so all of this stuff is very new I don't know how anybody in their right mind can even say that we haven't made progress since Miller Urie and finally Saying that it's not falsifiable is crazy when you're saying that these hypothesis have been tested and falsified so None of none. I didn't hear anything coherent. That's all Amy And just to add on green bracing but also Just my opening pot shot at John C. Sanford He is well known for his gene gun, which is highly respected and usable. However Our genes de-evolving is not accepted in the scientific community. Please not yet. I Don't think anyone is against special creation. I Also, I Took it out of my opening because I thought it was snarky, but I Would say we're the ones that are saying miracles don't happen We believe in rare events and when we start to under of it understand that rare events happen That's a minute Amy. All right there we and to be continued Okay Salar Taylor your response Okay, I'll respond. I I listed all these references from a respected origin of life researchers So if you missed it it was there for the viewers So I I brought the issues there I also brought the fact that all these supposed advances in origin of life Clemens Reichert who is not a creationist is calling out his fellow researchers and saying all that stuff is illegitimate There's too much investor and investigator interference You're totally designing these experiments and you're not accounting for how probable those conditions are going to be in the origin of life So yeah, you can make you can make DNA in the lab It doesn't mean that it's going to happen, you know kind of out in the wild and he's totally calling out the other ones So all of this supposed advancement and this is a big argument right now is that these papers are brave You know are basically a farce because they don't represent prebiotic chemistry There's no assigning of how probable these conditions are going to be or anything like it something as simple as purification Taylor Yes, exactly and whenever we're doing things like creating DNA in the lab. We're using already working enzymes, okay so those are already functioning and That's what a lot of the original life researchers have done that tried to claim that these things can happen is they put already working enzymes into the into the picture and You know, that's just not that's just not the case in reality like in a world that had absolutely no life That's just not going to be there So they they continue to be biased in in their in their results and try to Show that you know, these things could happen in nature whenever they're already using like working enzymes, which is not That's just not the case So I would like for let's see. I would like for Grayson to Explain what theory that he believes is the working one at this point you mentioned ammoid But can you just explain to the viewers what that consists of and what evidence there is of it? Okay, so again, there is no working consensus theory. They're only hypotheses. There's obviously a difference between theory and hypotheses I know that Sal listed a lot of citations It's just that all those people disagree with him and all of them think that there's a naturalistic explanation for a biogenesis So I don't understand why he thinks that citing them is showing that it's impossible when all the people he's citing Don't agree that it's impossible Um in terms of explaining ammoid world, it's literally like a 20 minute video on my channel I don't know how to condense it into like less than two minutes and still allow Amy to talk But it's basically like ammoids first which you don't require any enzymes I could list a lot of the citations Greenwald at all CPJ Mori have published on this But you don't need any starting enzymes You just need a volcanic gas to catalyze the prebiotic reactions which occurs at hydrothermal vents and they naturally form Ammoids that are capable of storing information having heredity self-replication catalyzing reactions Anantio-selectivity for homochirality Like all of these things that you guys say are problems are ticked off and shown empirically in ameloid research So so you said that we don't need an enzyme, but isn't that what you're saying was first? Don't you saying that this enzyme was first and but you're saying we don't need an enzyme I don't understand how that works ameloids do have enzymatic activity, but they are not dependent on a specific sequence Okay, so that you're saying that there's no information into that sequence, right? There is information it's information from the environment that is then selected upon by ameloid self-replication Okay, so an ameloid would have information stored in it in order to have the abilities that it has and the and the functions and the Reproductive functions and every other function that it does it would need to be self-replicating that is Continuing that informational one so it does have information. Okay, so one one real question would be Like where did this information come from like this is a really big question for this topic like like we have never seen information in this manner come about by natural causes I Would completely disagree with that and as I already explained the information is sourced from the environment Originally the ameloid sequence is essentially randomized based on its environment and what is available to it and that Information is then selected upon in frequent in subsequent generations for things like fitness effects like stability efficacy of self-replication all these things are going to hone that information content from randomized sequences to more efficacious sequences over time as a result of the like The evolutionary process on these molecular replicators Yeah, well, I just want to make a comment We have never seen Information like that contains layered informational hierarchy and integrated circuits in and large amounts of new inputted information Observed in nature Okay without an intelligent designer But the fact that we see these things present in our for example DNA code would show the positive case for Intelligent design because we have only seen seen these things come about with an intelligent designer now if you have an example of of For example integrated circuits being coded into nature without any intelligent designer input I'd like to hear those examples thing sure I don't I want to let Sal and Amy in on this But I just want to give you a brief example of exactly what you were looking for in SIV with their tethering binding system that is a four component Codependent irreducibly complex system that was observed to evolve so exactly what you were just looking for It's four components necessary for its function You need each one of them or else it doesn't work and it was observed to evolve in SIV. So there you go You said SIV. Can you can you just explain what that is of yours gonna look it up? It's an immunovirus It's for binding with human tethering So have we seen this immunovirus come about just by an input of raw nucleotides? That is not the point that I was trying to illustrate you asked how Integrated circuit can come about I explained that now you're moving the goalposts for something else That was not the point of the exam. Oh, I mean with absolutely no no intelligent designer So a virus already contains genetic information. Okay, so I'm talking about information from raw You know with note from no information. Okay, this was not just new information I'm talking about from an unintelligent, you know an intelligent source basically just like these Informational hierarchy and generated circuits being coded by nature Basically accidentally, okay, so that's what I wanted an example, but but we can move on if we have to or whatever Justin can I get a minute? I'll give you two bud. Go for it. Okay If I may share my screen just so you could see this quote here You see the quote says some future day some future day, okay, this is Robert Shapiro a chemist and Grayson was saying why am I citing all these people that don't you know that believe in origin of life? Is it that discredits it strengthens my argument because I'm showing that these guys are not creationists But they're admitting the problems. They're not they're not at all biased if anything. They're biased Toward a biogenesis, but they're confessing the difficulties. That's why I cited them I just wanted to clarify that and I'm gonna share this quote by an origin of life Researcher who's actually said some nice things about the creationist, but he said, you know some future day This is Robert Shapiro some future day may yet arrive when all reasonable chemical experiments run to discover a probable origin of life Have failed unequivocal unequivocally Unequivocally further new geological evidence may indicate a southern appearance of life on earth Finally, we may have explored the universe and found no trace of life or processes leading to life elsewhere in such cases Some scientists might choose to turn to religion for an answer Others however myself included would attempt to sort out the surviving less probable scientific Explanations in the hope of selecting one that was still more likely than the remainder and that is just an attitude That's fine. I mean, I'm a religious person I'm a man of faith That's the fate that I see in these origin of life researchers But they've had honest enough moments to say there are problems It doesn't quite agree with our beliefs. That's why I cited it. You asked why I cited them. That's the reason. Thank you Amy, do you want to weigh in it or can I meet it look if I just one second? I just want to add I'm not sure all the way back Going with the multiverse that really deals with like a pre big bang thing I don't know many hypotheses being put forward for the multiverse of life, but maybe We do sometimes talk about things like panspermia But even then it would mean that there have to be some sort of formation. That's kicking the can down I mean, we're open to Creators the problem is is that that also would need to be falsifiable and I don't see any Offers or explanations from proponents of creationism also And this will be maybe one and I'll move on to some of Taylor's claims But Sal you talked about things that were good theories and some of them were I agree But I guess do you have a formulation for the germ theory of disease? Do you believe that that is a good theory and would fit alongside? Those other theories like general relativity I think the dream theory of disease is a good theory And I think the theory of relativity is good theory and I've covered it on my channels. I Don't think First I think evolutionary theory is probably the worst theory out there Right beside a biogenesis theory Well a biogenesis theory is not a theory. It's not a thing So there's hypotheses of a biogenesis. There is no Biogenesis is definitely a thing. Well, it's it's accepted in scientists that it's the theory of a biogenesis Have you never heard that before? No, because it's not a theory. It's this competing hypotheses if for a theory you need a mechanism There is no Mechanism or theory of a biogenesis. So no, it's not there are just several competing hypotheses for it And if we're gonna be quoting people about all these problems in a biogenesis I think every single person agrees that there are unsolved problems within a biogenesis But the point cell is that your side needs to demonstrate that a biogenesis is Impossible and every single one of those sources would not say that a biogenesis is impossible And they would not say that any of their arguments is demonstrating that a biogenesis is impossible So I just don't think that citing them helps you because obviously no one's gonna say that there's no problems in a biogenesis Hypotheses because guess what there is no consensus theory of it And one more point sorry to take up a lot of time, but Taylor made the point way earlier that if all these hypotheses and we don't have any consensus theory yet Then we might as well just throw it away and and say that you know It's a miracle or whatever but again I brought up the impenpa effect because that is has over 2,000 years of being unsolved and all it is is why hot water freezes faster than cold water and nobody knows There is no theory. There's no physics. All we have are hypotheses It's in the same boat and you could just say the same argument Why don't we just throw away all our physics because they can't explain why hot water freezes quickly like this is the kind Of logic here. It's just what you're saying that there's a hypothesis, but what is the hypothesis? There's actually no working one There are hypotheses RNA I went over them in my presentation RNA world a amyloid world These are all competing hypotheses and they make testable predictions that we can falsify with empirical tests Which empirical test actually demonstrated that that was a working theory and Did they use already living enzymes for? No If you're asking about amyloid world hypothesis Greenwald at all 2016 They did not use any pre-existing enzymes all they used was a bunch of amino acids and some volcanic gas and they Didn't they already have Amino acid sequences in there as well though. No Okay, so you're you're positing that what happened from that experiment. You said that they put in what did they insert into the experiment? Okay, and then what we got a working what you're saying that a working amyloid came out of that Yes That that were capable of self-replication and catalyzing other Reactions like ATP hydrolysis and and their own Their own self-replication, etc. Yeah, but they already had inserted the genetic material and information. I remember that No, they did not There was no nucleotides at all in the experiment. There was no genetics. There was no DNA or RNA in this experiment Yeah, can you can you tell me which which non-existing experiment this is again? I for the third time Greenwald et al from 2016 showed it. There's also route 2018 which did it in a Like with using multiple different chiralities and of a handedness and they there's been lots of research Into how amyloids can create? Homo chiral products. Okay, this is a burgeoning field of amyloid research I would really like to hear from Sal as well. So like the give and take you guys are having is fantastic But I'm trying to keep to a two minute back and forth, but we've got Sal and Amy as well Let's see if Sal can back you up or add to what you're trying to say Okay, can I have at least a minute? You've got to but I Sided the asphalt paradox the opening stuff I showed with the little raiders of the lost Ark and Grayson's totally ignoring it. I'll just read it again Organic systems given energy and left to themselves devolve to uselessly complex mixtures Theory enumerate small molecule space as well as structure theory and chemistry can be construed to regard this devolution as a Necessary consequence of theory. So all these exceptional experiments are not representative You're having to then when you have to have to struggle so hard to get one experiment to get just a little result That's probably not going to go anywhere in the real world You know that I consider that pretty much illegitimate because then you're going to need so many other Conditions to make this work and one thing about Especially like polymers polypeptides, especially there's a paper that says live long. Don't prosper live long. Don't prosper These things will degrade naturally very quickly over geological time And then also the other thing is if you don't have a recipe for sequencing it If you don't have something like DNA to be able to copy read and duplicate You know, you may get these one poly these sets of polypeptides, but that's it You're not going to reconstruct it in any way that resembles the life that we have today So you might as well just have all these little replicators to just go nowhere and we I'll speak them and show where this goes. It goes to simplification just like Benner said. Thank you If I can really quickly and then Amy I'd like you to go after the Okay, so Benner in his own conclusions shows we expect most of these paradoxes to be resolved and That because the theories that generate them are incorrect and complete or in applicable to molecular systems So again, he doesn't have your conclusion that a biogenesis is impossible because of them He's just saying whatever mechanism of a biogenesis must account for these things an amyloid world does account for several of those paradoxes that you brought up Like the things that you've listed are literally accounted for in the amyloid world hypothesis Like you don't need genetic sequence because amyloids can store information in their sequences That then can be inherited by the daughter amyloids. So like, yeah A lot of what you brought up is already addressed in the more recent theories If you read about them, you'll you'll see exactly why I mean these amyloids are not just going all into complex chaos and everything so I just want to also point out that there doesn't seem to be a lot of ID literature putting out At least hypotheses or even theories testable theories that we can go out I don't see a lot of detrimental problems other than we have to find a few different Mechanisms and it may it may be that there isn't just one solution But that there are multiple hypotheses that will end up Combining or one taking over the other as we get Better information but oh I and I'll just finish by saying so far Religion has never Been the answer a God so far has never been the every time that we have used God as an answer We've always found out there was a naturalistic explanation All right, South Taylor response Yeah, I was just I was just gonna ask a question about the amyloid world hypothesis. Oh go ahead I'm sorry. He said okay, you go right now. I'd like to go ahead and ask I yield my time Okay, yeah, I was just gonna ask a question about the amyloid world hypothesis So if there was an amyloid to to have an arisen we know that it would need to be replicated But in order to get that information it would have to be in an unfolded form to be able to give out its information So it would basically have to default itself and replicate itself So can you please explain how that possibility or how that would have been? Yeah, because that's not how amyloid replication works empirically You don't need to unfold the amyloid Want the amyloid acts as a template by which the other amyloids are added in a way that replicates the sequence of the original Template without saying other amyloids. We're talking about the first one Yeah, I so am I here. Oh, how would it first one acts as a template The first thing that we would have had to be two amyloids. No, I'm not. No, I'm not. I'm not saying that at all I'm trying to be clear here Taylor The first amyloid has an essentially randomized sequence determined by the environment You do not need any specific sequence to form an analog and amyloid almost all sequences of amino acids will naturally form Amyloids and again with what Sal was saying about stability amyloids are the most stable form of these protein structures They're incredibly long-lasting and they have differential fitness effects of their stability based on their composition so you already have fitness effects going on and again the way that these amyloids replicate is that more Amino acids are continuously being added on to the ever-alongating amyloid fibril in a way that is Copying the the parent sequence so that first amyloid sequence is going to be replicated to the daughter amyloids Which again, this is a self replicating molecular system. So So as I mentioned, are you saying that there were had to be two No, he's there. So you're saying that the the one amyloid that came about however that happened In the correct chirality, etc, etc And supposing all the nucleotides are present and it's in a stable environment to be able to sustain itself This one No, no, I believe you it probably was not in a stable environment to sustain itself. But literally none of that is what I'm saying Okay, no, no listen. Listen. Okay. So you're saying that the amyloid had to Basically replicate itself to begin with is that what you're saying? With just infinite free nucleotides there to use just all happy and stable like that doesn't exist But it's okay. We'll give you the benefit of the doubt. No, actually you don't need all of all of that. Okay, so Amyloids form naturally spontaneously. We've seen this in a lab. That's what greenwald et al showed in But don't act like they didn't give it just a point of full amino acids and I'm about to address that taylor I was about to address that the concentrations that they used were Were similar to the concentrations of amino acids found naturally occurring on meteorites So we have natural Analogs of similar concentrations. Okay, and then amyloids can also form with racemic mixtures of both handedness However, they do not form as well and the stability is then like you basically have evolutionary pressure Towards more homochiral compounds and we've also seen homochiral Amyloid beta sheet moieties form From racemic mixtures. So we have all that information empirically demonstrated So you're saying that the the information for these amyloids were just there and and and how did that get inserted because have we seen at all This insert insertation of new information without any intelligent designer This is the fourth time I have answered this. I'm trying to be very clear here that Amyloid that first amyloid had an essentially randomized sequence dependent on the environment and what was surrounding it Okay, so that's where the first information comes from The information then is refined through selection because the amyloid is self replicating has heritability And differential fitness effects and variation in the population. So that creates selection that then Creates that more specified information that we see happen all the time in evolutionary systems Taylor may I may I weigh in and I'd like to defer to Amy because Um, I don't want to hog someone else's time here. So just I like your style So I'll go ahead take two minutes and then we'll let Amy chime in That this is incredible. You're talking about amyloids. There are way more proteins in a cellular system Just to say you can get some replication and then somehow this is going to extrapolate to building Like to say helicases and polymerases terpoisomerases Translocation processes all these things that are necessary for cellular life. We're talking about cellular life not just this Glob of amyloids. That's that's just absurd and to talk about selection A lot of people realizing that fails this whole Darwinian selection thing is all backward. It's dumb. It's I'll try not to use offensive words here. Forgive me, but For example, Lensky's experiment fitness gains this, you know Genomes decay despite sustained fitness gains all experiments. Most of them the majority is when there's competitive Competition for reproductive efficiency. It's loss of genes loss of genes and even as Early as saw Spiegelman's monster experiment. There was loss of DNA. There's loss of information. So when you're trying to have Competitive environments where you make a reproductive success what ends up happening is you lose you try to go for metabolic Efficiency that means simplicity There's a tendency towards simplicity not not building it. So trying to invoke selection is not going to help It's actually going to make the argument worse. That's proven in numerous experiments observations and theories You could shake your head all you want, but I'll show you all these preferences because it's coming out in the last 10 years It's just a delusion. Thank you Amy, do you want to reply to that? I just want to throw some more things on the the table It is true that the lab is not nature But when we are in the lab, we are trying to oftentimes replicate nature when we are building Our experiments we are trying to build what we think is the proto or early earth um We we're talking about uh homo. I can't even say uh Hyrule not homo chiral and that it's true when we make things in the lab You know when we make sugar in a lab It is both right and left and it's 50 50 and then when you look In nature it is not like that and we have to find ways around that however I would Say that is what the scientists right now are doing and I want to then just put it Back reverse because to me it sounds like a biogenesis versus genesis and so Is there any sort of New experimentation That would show us that the origin of life actually leads to a designer I could respond the rest of my time. Yep Go ahead. So I'll try to be brief. Amy brings up good points You know, I totally get it that the scientists We all tend to believe things we can understand and even as a christian and as a creationist It's kind of hard to say. Okay. I'm going to have to accept maybe a mechanism. I'll never comprehend Test or verify But how different is this from Where a biogenesis is now and where it's been going I mean when we start in vote when Eugene Coonan starts invoking multiple universes that are not testable verifiable or observable You know, where we're where are we and so What I hear here is all these appeals to hypothetical entities that we we can't ultimately prove So I think both sides have a matter of faith here And and and it could be that the answers may be well out of science I'll get some plaque from my colleagues because I actually say id is not science I say it may be true in the ultimate sense, but i'm not going to argue with science I don't I think that's hard to defend But I will argue that I think it's true and the evidence argues for it that i'm not going to Frame it and something that's experimentally verifiable. So I mean, I think Amy has a you know, I think has a very legitimate concern But I'm not that's why I don't frame it in terms of science. So just wanted to say thanks, Amy Taylor, did you want to get in on that or um I um, yeah, I mean I I could just pass it for now I was actually looking at on this paper that you were recommended. I look at the green I believe sal put something on the table before me that Amy respond that Grayson's Chewing on still so let's let Grayson Well, I can absolutely and also Taylor The cpj mori has a review article on amyloid world hypothesis. That's a great resource anyways From what I heard from sal was essentially an incredulity Argument an argument from incredulity saying that he doesn't understand how all these complicated enzymes could have come about from you know, self replicating chemical system undergoing Darwinian evolution and then he said That scientists are moving away from the idea of natural selection and how it's reductive This is that more that genetic entropy stuff seeping into an abiogenesis conversation. But yeah Lensky's experiment all you have to do is just ask, you know, what were the Selection pressures in there what and then that pretty much will answer the results of the lensky's experiment Is that the selection pressures were favoring more simple and less complex genomes. So that's why they happen And then yeah that we have plenty of evidence that selection does in fact Create more complexity rather than more simplicity And the paper that I showed in my opening where you start out with one self replicating RNA And then by the end of their experiment Over 120 or 200 generations later. It was a long-term experiment thousands of hours They had five New lineages of RNA replicators that were in a replicating network that was irreducibly complex and codependent So that is a more complicated less simple outcome there Anyone want to take that? Oh, yeah, so I'm looking here. It just seems like they put amino acids into a mixture and just got a bunch of hydrophobic Um protein residues. It doesn't seem like they had any sort of self replicating Um amyloid as you're describing, but a polymerization It does does not equal um replication if that's what you're thinking. So just because something can, um Verizon to like a just a big glob of amino acids Um It doesn't mean that it's a self replicating like amyloid. There's a difference there, but That's that's kind of what I thought to begin with Okay, well, I've entered a question. Um, if that's okay with me. Yeah, by all means. So yeah, I really quickly just Is that right with you? Grayson And I just really quickly respond to what taylor said before yeah, I didn't want to step on your time, sir Go ahead. I appreciate that's how I was just going to say that again the cpj mori paper These are self replicating amyloids. They are template dependent I mean, it's hard to fully to fully research a topic and read papers on the fly live in a debate But I would just And I am familiar with this I just I like I would just double checking because I didn't think so But now I know that they did not get any sort of self replicating amyloid That's that's what I figured out already But you were so confident in saying that that I because it is absolutely self replicating you get the same sequence amyloids as the parent sequence starting it like Or like it is Okay, so you're talking about another paper where they like you just mentioned the template already Already provided so with a template already provided you have you have the ability To add the self replication, but you already have active active enzymes, okay in a template But in this case from just pure nucleotides, they basically can get you know Poemerization in these extreme conditions But that's what you would expect anyway if you glump together, you know amino acids and then Put it in the right environment and then polymerizing together is not that unheard of. I mean, that's not that Amazing like to be frankly honest You're just misrepresenting these studies Taylor. I'm sorry, but they are self replicating systems The researchers agree with this. That's why self replicating is literally in the title of a lot of these papers These are self replicating and they are acknowledged as such by the field So are you talking about that? Is this one called spontaneous formation of amyloid amyloid aggregates in prebiotic amino acid Condensation reactions is that the paper you're referring to by jason greenwald in 2016? Yes, but there's also a 2018 paper Like prebiotic template directed peptide synthesis based on amyloids again This is like I said that one's template that one's template directed that that's basically where they Um, they already insert like these templates necessary. They're not getting it just from pure Amino acids. So that would be that would be, you know, impressive to me Even though that's just scratching the surface of like people don't understand like how complex the cell is so like these are Just tiny little nuances of a whole System with thousands of machines in it that we can't even comprehend So we're talking about like a nuance of one thing As you can see the fact that we're even arguing about such tiny minute things Just shows how little progress we have in this in this field and it's very sad, you know With so many decades of research so much money put put into it. It's just not getting anywhere If anything we're figuring out that there's more problems each time we run an experiment So, I mean and the research the researchers themselves actually admit this that you know, it's it is incredible, you know to even Continue on in this manner because we're just getting further and further away from having any sort of working theory They absolutely do not say any of that Taylor. I would completely disagree. Yes, they do They literally admit it themselves. It was sal sal mentioned earlier. I've read papers where they've done it as well So you can't say that doesn't happen. They don't say that they're getting farther and farther away. Okay, you can say Yes, it's an incredible like cells are incredibly complex and we don't know what the full mechanism is But again, we're learning more things as we go along. None of the researchers It's just these paradoxes that cannot be answered like there's so many of them like So like for example the water paradox just to throw one off the top of my head out of the many that there exists Like can you explain the water paradox for the viewers? Sure. Yeah, that's what you need. I'd like to weigh in Okay, go ahead. So yeah, let's let's sell in here Uh, thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt Taylor Um Perfect. So in biochemistry like 201 or 301 Like the first several classes we talk about ramachandran plots the importance of the chirality now Um, if you have a racemic mixture Uh, you know, how are you going to form? You have left and right-handed Amino acids. Are you going to form stable alpha helices? I mean you might replicate but you're going to replicate junk Um, so I don't know where this is coming from I'm just throwing it out there for the other people But I I'd like to move on from what I think is just basically going to be dead-end research That's a testable prediction by the way Someone's going to find out that this is a dead-end and they're going to propose their own crank theory too That's the way it's been going for the last several decades and it keeps getting just bad. It's kind of entertaining to watch I mean, I I commend their valor and their determination But they're fighting against basic laws of physics and chemistry. So if I may, um Just if I could share Something, well, I'll do that in my next segment But the thing is it's just like with uh, why don't I just say that for the next segment But I I have a serious problem if you're starting with the racemic mixture that it's going to spontaneously Start building polypeptides that have stable alpha helices. That's nonsense All right, garrison. I'm going to give you two minutes to respond and then I want to give it back to cell Oh, yeah, I'll share my screen here. Um, I didn't get to cover this very much in my opening, but here are Uh, few papers. There's tons. I had to cut it down because there's too many papers to include on this screen It's already text heavy But here are just three papers showing that amyloids do create homo chiral outcomes Like this one is stereospecific amyloid like fibril formation Bipeptide fragments. So again, this is stereospecific and in this one by Wang at all 2016 They actually found completely, uh, homo homo chiral pleated sheet amyloids In segments here, you can see that there's chiral recognition in amyloid fiber growth Again, these are enantiose selective processes in amyloid fiber formation And there's other naturalistic explanations for homo chirality That are also listed here with citations. So again, I would like reject this line of reasoning I south may have made a viable prediction But I predict that his prediction will be falsified and that we will add a lot of fruit out of this amyloid research Because truthfully, we have not been doing amyloid research for a biogenesis for decades It literally just started in like the 2000s and 2010s Nobody was looking at amyloids for a biogenesis because everybody was focused on them in prion diseases and Alzheimer's Nobody was thinking about them in terms of a biogenesis. This is a relatively new field Yeah I want I want to allow Sal a chance greece and Taylor's at the floor of the most part And I'll try to yield so on to Taylor. Thank you This is ridiculous. They're starting with an amyloid to make homo chiral stuff Where does where does the amyloid start from? It has to start from an OMA from a racemic mix because the Gibbs free energy predicts the natural direction Is even starting from homo chirality. It's going to go racemic This is just nonsense. So I I stand on that prediction and despite the fact you're citing all these papers We have mountains of evidence that of homo chiral systems go To racemic that is natural. That is the Gibbs free energy You're not going to be able to run away from that and if you're trying to polymerize it We have lots of experiments that show like if you're heat polymerizing that's going to accelerate the racemization This is nonsense. This is cherry picking. This again is intelligent design in the laboratory Representing it as something that happens naturally the overwhelming exception is on my side and Taylor I read I yield the rest of my two minutes. Please respond to that I'd like Taylor to go with my time slot. I'd like Taylor to have my time slot. Thank you No, it's okay I was gonna just ask him if he's actually read all those papers and the materials and methods because sometimes the The um the titles and the abstract can be deceiving only until you go and actually read the materials and methods Do you actually understand all the procedures that we're done here and all of the you know Like he said cherry picking that was added and frankly that's done a lot of studies But especially a present here, but anyway, yeah, I was gonna ask gracing out And I have something to add but I'm succeeding my time right now because I know Grayson's got something to say Thank you for being so magnanimous Amy I really wanted to leave you to get more in on this after I just had to get this out because Those studies I cited started with racemic mixtures exactly like sal said so he was correct that they started with racemic mixtures They did not start with homochiral products what they got was homochiral products Because of the nature of amyloid formation being anantio selective and stereoselective and regio selective So again, this is all in those papers. Taylor. Yes I did look at the methods of those papers and I got those papers from a review article where experts had Taken insights from the papers And I verified that those insights were accurate by looking at the methods for each of those before I included them in my power point And yes There is a Gibbs free energy advantage to homochiral amyloids as opposed to racemic amyloids amyloids can form both racemically or Homo chirally But there is energetic differences and the more stable form that is thermodynamically favored is the homochiral form And that's why there is a environmental pressure Towards homochiral products in amyloid formation. It's all laid out in the study May I have about 30 seconds to respond? You may I think Taylor called you out on it. You you had racemic mixture and you threw amyloid templates We're talking about starting from pure racemic stuff Racemic free-floating amino acids and you're going to throw an amyloid and say look this So where does that amyloid come from except intelligent design and a story done illegitimate experiment exactly when I pointed out with clemence weichert This is investigator interference doing the hand of god imitation. Thank you I just like to point out sal hasn't read any of these Papers, but he speaks so confidently on them when literally they all start out with racemic mixtures and the amyloids are formed Like out of those racemic mixtures. So yeah, he just needs to read the papers Come on, and I just want to push back on that. This is a faith conversation I believe that we are looking at science. I believe that scientists biologists are trying to solve this question and I understand They're being problems, especially because we're looking so far back however We have things in physics like trying to Mix general relativity and quantum mechanics. That is a problem We may or may not solve that problem. Nonetheless, general relativity and quantum mechanics both seem to be true And so although there always are going to be different scientific quandaries Like grace and as saying we've been making great strides In what is now an entire field All right before you guys continue. I'm just going to Shut up to our audience real quick. Thanks again for coming everybody. Hope you're enjoying the debate We're just about out of our main time going to enter the q&a section So if you've got any super chats, you would like to ask our debaters Now is your time to go ahead and put those in And uh, we'll get into that section. Um, I'm going to give you guys about another 10 minutes or so With this pattern of Discussion Yeah, so carry on Yeah, I would like um For grace and to share what um, what what paper it was that they just they added non racemic mixtures and got uh amyloids out of because I think the viewers would like to know Yeah, okay the uh Let's see Mirror images of antimicrobial peptides provide reflections on their functions and amyloid genic properties 2016 by wong at all So just just right you said that there wasn't a template, correct? Yeah, and not a template so But yeah, I mean again, maybe this would have been helpful to provide all papers beforehand So people are not trying to read papers or make statements about papers that they have not read Well, this is why I actually want to know because I believe that's what's going on here, but it's it's okay Okay, because I already I already exposed the last one, you know, but I don't think you did actually Yes, they were not self-replicating. They were just polymerizing Well, I have spoken with jason greenwald the public author of that paper myself and he is and throughout Well mentions the self-replicating activity of amyloids and this is not questioned in the field So But not but not not studied. There was not that no, it wasn't the self-replication. It was a polymerization that was tested there but I just want you to at least address want like Okay, so earlier I mentioned the water paradox I would appreciate if you could just answer a question like that because some of the reasons why we believe that A biogenesis should be reconsidered is because of the vast impossibilities that exist within that theory and the paradoxes that have not been answered So if you could just answer maybe the water paradox, for example, because I know we Yeah, so the water paradox is basically that you need water and you can't have water in Forming a lot of these molecules like water is going to actively hurt their stability and break them down and hydraulic size But they also need to be in an aqueous environment So the amyloid world hypothesis addresses this because one it doesn't hydrolyze in water So the the amyloids are not broken down readily by water. They're extremely stable Uh, two they form in aqueous solutions with carbonyl sulfide. So there you go. They can form in water they're not broken down by water and amyloid fibril networks can also create Hydrophobic pockets by which other molecules can form without water present. So there you go I thought that the paper that you cited was with volcanic gas though Yes, carbonyl sulfide volcanic gas Go ahead Sal. I'll give you two minutes. Um, I'd like to I'd like to have three minutes, but I really should clear it with the opponents Sure, and just afterwards I just want to ask a question I personally don't want to have three minutes out of our remaining eight minutes Um, Sal, I'm we're gonna try to just like limit people to that two minutes that we Roger that I'll do my best guys Okay, I was going to ask everyone and since we're talking about anybody would anybody here or would everybody here Um, like some time to close out before we get into q&a I was hoping you're gonna say pizza party, but that too. We'll take that Okay, okay The first three minutes at the end and for now you can just do two Okay, thank you. Uh, thank you all that that's no problem First off, this is ridiculous to be appealing to amyloids if you just look at amyloids They're a cause of human diseases. They're destructive to other proteins and systems. This is this is nonsense It's going nowhere and I even posed this question. I said, how does this going to lead to a translocation processes? How's this going to make like a transmembrane proteins? How's this going to make stuff like helicases and polymerases things that we see in cellular life? This is a total dead end in a waste of time. That's a testable prediction People are going to just disregard this and say it's a dead end. It's delusional Um, now one thing I wanted to cover And if I run out of time I run out of time If I may share my screen here I can Grab it and I lot I I didn't use my stopwatch. So if I run out of time it's on me but um There is a natural tendency in biology and chemicals in general if if they are If they're chiral they can go left or right but in DNA can get even worse um In fact, even just to make a DNA thing Even just a few there are thousands thousands of possibilities So if we just take even just like with scrabble letters to be able to make them readable This is difficult. It just does not spontaneously happen None of this amyloid nonsense is going to solve this problem and I don't expect it to I don't expect it to This is a very difficult problem. This is the problem of homo linkage not just homo chirality homo linkage I mean look at all the ways that these dna's these nucleotides can assemble spontaneously We need very careful processes to regulate this this does not happen in a prebiotic environment All of this amyloid stuff is just red herrings. Just pretending you're solving something when you know, you're straining it Nats and letting camels through. I mean, this is worth the discussion That's why I asked for three minutes But I I do want to respect the time and the courtesy of my opponents here and the moderator But this is this is going nowhere. We haven't even touched on this So, um guys Whatever It's a mess. You're not going to solve it. It's a dead end. Stop pretending. It's going to go anywhere. Thank you It's your time. So thank you Amy you have a response to that Yes, and that just perfectly sets up fall for If it's not going anywhere and we just have our hypotheses and we want a biogenesis to be reconsidered My question to you is what are we putting in its place? Where does the origin of life come from? Well in a scientific sense, there are theories that um are there are, you know, things that have not been explained. So um just to even reconsider intelligent design or anything else or for for the most part just to You know, reconsider the theory of a biogenesis to begin with they some things don't you know, don't have a working explanation for them There's many things like that in science where they're just unexplained phenomena Kind of like you mentioned earlier with the hot water is hot water freeze quicker You know, um, but it is sad that We can't figure it out, but there's just simply no working theory and all the theories have Um detrimental downfalls to them. So and and like you said earlier Sadevar That's a true statement that we're straining in NASA letting camels through because That is very true. The people can't even understand the complexity of this topic and and like life in a cell itself They just don't understand the molecular machinery and everything needed is just Uncomprehensible to say the least All right, so an incredulity argument, thank you Taylor and Sal if I can address a little bit of what he said, I just will quote from the paper by route at all from 2018 That amyloids can direct the sequence selective regio selective and stereo selective condensation of amino acids So that addresses every point that he just brought up. He is not familiar with this paper He's never read it and yet he's making such confident claims about what these papers that he's never read show I mean, if he would actually read some of this literature Before he makes statements about what it's saying or what it's showing Maybe he wouldn't be making the use an argument. I said to you that's just kind of cheap Yeah, first off may I respond 30 seconds? Look, he started with an amyloid. That's the problem. You need to make an amyloid first You have to start with an amyloid. That's ridiculous. You're saying it Just pops out of nowhere and then throw it in and you say that it can do this This is this is again investigator interference and this is not argument from incredulity It is an argument by contradiction No, the difference between before you accuse us of argument from incredulity I'm showing scientific evidence why it doesn't work. That's science. That's not incredulity. Thank you All right And I debunked your arguments with actual empirical studies and again that 2016 greenwalled paper that showed that amyloids formed spontaneously from amino acids in the presence of volcanic gases Yeah, that paper had amyloid formation on it as these amyloids are growing. That is the polymerization Yes, the polarization of amyloids how that works the polymerization of amino acids How how I'm going to talk over to everybody right now I'm just so we're pretty much near the end of our time here I want to allow the south taylor side to have the final word of the main debate But then I'm going to give everybody an individual three minutes to close out Okay, um, so sal and taylor if you want to have the final word of our open discussion Taylor do you want to go first you go ahead? Okay, uh, how long do I how long do I have and I just I just wanted you guys to have the final word of our core 50 minute discussion and then we'll go in. Okay. I'll I'll show you something that Um, let me show this here And then we're talking about RNAs Or nucleotides it is striking that our desired adenine cytosine deoxyribose Dynucleotide is just one of the 16,200 possible chemicals that can result from linking an adenine and a cytosine Two deoxyribose and two phosphate groups There are there for 16,199 possible configurations in only one correct configuration of a single stranded DNA molecule that has only an ac dinucleotide Many of these isomers with the wrong configurations are energy equivalent to or even more stable than the correct one We have billions of these pairs of these connections throughout our genome billions And you could see how improbable it is even to get just two of them in a readable configuration None of this amyloid nonsense and and and uh, Grayson didn't point out Oh, you take these random amyloids and then you're you're equivocating as if you know The other experiment that actually used designed ones or taken ones Uh and throwing them in that's illegitimate. That's so much of this stuff is equivocation And it doesn't solve the problems that i'm just showing here This is this is going nowhere. You're straining it gnats letting camels huge camels through now I'd like to address Amy's question. So where do we go at some point? There may be things we don't know We may have to accept there things we cannot verify or ever know there are things about history like The wars of alexander. We will never know the details I mean, it's valiant that we're pursuing it But there could be a point that we just have to admit we accept some things by faith All right, so i'm going to call that the end of our standard normal time Clearly, this is a fantastic topic. We should be visited later absolutely Grayson and Amy started the debate. I believe you guys should begin with the opening statements or the final statements as well So Grayson and Amy you guys can fight over who's going to go first We can just do the same order that we opened with right? Okay. I'll give you three minutes each Okay, so I was kind of cut off right in the middle of my thought the last time So in that study that was showing the spontaneous formation of amyloids It was showing that templated directed process because that's how amyloids grow Okay, if you are not familiar with amyloid literature, it's an easy mistake to make But if you actually read these amyloid papers and understand how amyloids grow and form Then you would understand that it is a regio selective stereo selective sequence selective process Okay, it's inherent in amyloid fibril formation So when they have these spontaneous generations of amyloid fibrils all of that is entailed it is self-replicating this is what taylor has missed because Again, I just encourage my opponents to read more of amyloid literature here um So I'll brought up RNA confirmations again This is assuming that the RNA just came together from all of its constituent parts spontaneously out of nowhere And there was no kind of catalyst or anything that could direct this process Which is fallacious reasoning because again In order for you to say oh, there's all these possible confirmations Okay, you're ignoring the fact that those confirmations have different like different functional Like outcomes different structural In interactions with their environment, there are selective pressures on those different confirmations They can be formed catalytically that have certain regio selective Uh preferences including amyloids here. Okay, like amyloids do have enzymatic activity and can catalyze reactions Including their own formation. Okay, this is not disputed in the literature I know my opponents are disputing this because they maybe haven't read the literature But the fact that amyloids are self-replicating is not disputed by anyone in the literature Um, so yeah, I'll just finish by saying that Um, I heard a lot of incredulity. I do think that that's all it is by pointing out that all all these complex enzymes and everything How could they possibly form again? The hypothesis of like RNA world, abiogenesis, amyloid world These are all getting to self-replicating chemical systems that are capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution, right? They're not trying to make an explanation from abiogenesis all the way to the last universal common ancestor and Explaining every single protein family. Okay, we're not there yet in the science I know you want us to be but you know, we just don't know every single step along the way That doesn't mean that individual steps like I've highlighted tonight Do not have empirical support for them and have plausible naturalistic mechanisms Which have been shown in experiment? So again, we don't have every single mechanism for every single protein family all the way up to proto cells and luca But we do have confirmed plausible naturalistic That's your time Grayson along the way All right, Amy Three minutes. It's all yours Thank you. I just want to say that abiogenesis is Multiple leading hypotheses Some which may end up being combined or ones that will end up Subceeding the others Just going over a few points. We are not devolving I've seen no evidence of a special creation or a miracle. We are aware of rare events. It could be That we came from something like panspermia or something like that Though a multiverse has nothing to do with this subject We have many good theories Like the germ theory of disease the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution Evolution happens with or without a biogenesis, but we're trying to Figure out what happened. There has to have been a point where Non-life became life. I feel like the id components still proponents still have this problem But they have no mechanism to offer in return It is true that labs are sterile, but we are trying to replicate Early life that's the goal and Religion has never often are us any sorts Of explanation that can be falsified or has ever actually been true Um, yes, this is not a faith question. This is a scientific question I think we will have an answer one day And the only way to do so is by continuing to go out in the field And although more problems Sometimes arise as we learn more That doesn't mean that we should just give up on the project. That means we just need our best biologists Working in the field And so I haven't heard anything that I think should be Reconsidered I think that there's actually been as Grayson has shown in his example Many prominent hypotheses that are graining traction And I look forward to the q&a section. I do want to thank Justin Sal Taylor and Grayson for having this and Looking forward to the questions All right with that The team of sal and taylor. I don't know which one of you would like to Go first, but I've got three minutes lined up just for you Taylor Hey guys, sorry um Yeah, I mean this amyloid plaque Is is just not It's just not going to get us anywhere. I'm sorry Like we haven't even scratched the surface on how we're getting dna codes from this Disease causing plaque. I mean, this is absolutely. This is really a joke If you look in the grand scheme of things the fact that they're clinging on to These plaques basically they cause diseases. It just shows you where we're at It's very very You know far behind where we should be at this point with decades of research So, yeah, um, we have to get a corresponding dna code and all of them like machinery and things like this, um, we haven't Yeah, we just haven't got there and in terms of pan spermia You know, that's just really pushing back the problem Because you know, all these same problems still apply anywhere in the universe about how the first life's going to arise That's that's really the question of a biogenesis. So if it came from another planet or if it came from here It really doesn't matter It's pushing back pushing back the same problem of life forming From non-living materials Which we have not observed yet by the way if you're wondering from all this whole debate We have not Observed a living cell come from non-living components. I just want to make that clear to the audience because they might not know Um And yeah, it is it is very important for the audience to read the papers because you have to look at the materials And the methods to actually understand what's going on here a lot of the time There's definitely researcher bias in it and only from the methods. Can you actually see what was really put into things? and um, that's important especially for this topic when we're trying to say that these things could have came out of You know out of um, you know non Ideal conditions, which is what nature has to offer sometimes um Yeah, uh, I just think that a biogenesis at this point with with the more and more research that we do should definitely be reconsidered and uh, we should begin to kind of Accept the reality here and stop trying to teach it as if it's fact and something that's has a working theory because it simply does not Thank you We have a little bit of time left Death three minutes is all yours my friend Did this whole nonsense about amyloids again? This is straining it nuts I mean as taylor pointed out these things proliferate. Yes, it's they create disease Exactly the problem and the thing about proteins You don't want to make too much or too little because that's just going to bunk everything up So this thing that it's self proliferating and you're having all this reproductive efficiency That leads to nowhere if you overexpress too many, you know one kind of protein and it just proliferates in the cell It's it's it's it's going to ruin it This is nonsense that it's going to point to anything. So let's even grant the all this amyloid stuff It's not going to make anything near a cell in the way you described it with its fitness competition It's just going to be like, uh, what happens and sadly in in all these amyloid diseases like Alzheimer's It's just going to proliferate and destroy things. This is a dead end But we haven't even touched on the nucleotide problems. There's so many things that transmembrane issues are going to be gigantic None of this is going to solve the emergence of transmembrane proteins or any of the things involved in translation and transcription And you haven't that's not going to solve the origin of RNA and DNA in its sequencing This is straining at nats letting camels and elephants through and it's it's not argument by incredulity It's argument by contradiction contradicted by what we know about science. Thank you All right Well, that was a fantastic show guys. Thank you so much for coming out. Uh, before we get into the q&a Uh, just want to remind everybody to hit that like and subscribe button We are coming to the end of 2023, which will be a year in the record books for modern day debate 166,000 subscribers Absolutely fantastic and it's all because of you guys For watching and supporting the channel Um, and with that, uh after the q&a section There is an unofficial after show on matters now so anyone who wants to Come and have a discussion and dissect our debaters performance tonight. Feel free to come on over there And of course the debaters all four of you are welcome to join as well um, and with that we'll get into Our super chats. Sorry as I said that a super chat just came in this want to make sure I I log that one here And Yeah, so we let people know where to find us by the way Yeah, after the q&a before we we wave goodbye and We'll definitely do that And there we go our first question from bitter truth 499 can you please confirm jesus born by a virgin and yes And if yes was that asexual reproduction behind that I guess that's from the christians. I assume. Yeah Uh, I I don't think I can do that experimentally. No one will it may be one day you'll find out in the final day Yeah, thank you by the way for your super chat Cool, uh, I was just gonna um say back to that question So if god can create dna then why couldn't he created an already living person and asexual reproduction is um from a Yeah, and um already living organism basically being able to reproduce but mary did not replicate herself So that would not be asexual reproduction. Um, yeah It's about it hey Our next question of bitter truth again 499 creationists kindly kindly help If science is hypothesis that mighty will that prove you god who created Did planet then created light after a few days incorrect um Yeah, that was a really tough question to read I have a few guys can see it there Maybe you can Dissect what they're asking. I don't know um I'm sorry, but uh, thank you for the super chat. It's very kind of you and mary christmas Um, and I apologize if I'm not answering the question directly. There are many things that we cannot absolutely prove And we can just kind of suggest things. I mean if you don't find our arguments credible, I respect that Um, I just think when we look at the universe, uh, it looks like it's it's designed I mean even the atheist fred oil said that so whether we can prove it it happened recently That's going to be a very big topic. I am a young earth creationist But I I'm not I'm the first to say I you know, I don't think we We have yet a good scientific case and I'm happy to leave it at that. I'm glad you're interested whether we can and how far we can move it forward but That's kind of where it is But I would say I think our hypothesis is certainly better than evolutionary theory. Thank you I appreciate you attempting to to answer that. So thank you And our next question Uh, bitter truth 499 our big supporter of the night creationists A biogenesis if wrong will this prove you falls god whose claims are false? prove what So I believe that they're saying is as A biogenesis if it's wrong will this prove I think they're asking does that mean god is false if a biogenesis has proven true Is what I'm guessing Was this prove god is false. I don't think we can prove god is false Yeah, um We're not absolutely not And you know other things we're never going to be able to prove we just move forward What we think is the better The better choice. I mean this is so consistent with everything in life We don't have all the answers, but we still make decisions. We sign contracts We make job decisions with incomplete information. There's no need to have absolute proof to be able to Decide how you're going to live your life or what you're going to believe So if a biogenesis Shows to happen naturally, I probably wouldn't be a creationist anymore And I'd I'd probably be an agnostic or an atheist if someone's able to show it So yeah, my faith could be falsified if someone succeeds in this So can I Let's I'm sorry to say and then I'll ask I'll let you ask a question gearson Yeah, and there's there's many, you know Medical miracles that have been documented and many other things to show that you know, there's something supernatural out there This is kind of getting a little bit more acceptance in the scientific community The fact that there's other dimensions that you know, we can't see and that there may be things there that that we cannot see um But yeah, so I think the bigger question here though is why is there something versus nothing? That's a really big question. Like why doesn't just nothing exist? So the fact that there is something versus nothing suggests that there's always been something there And you know, that something must have a will and and have a lot of quite a lot of intelligence to create This um amazing universe. Um, but yeah, that that's my answer. Thank you Okay, go ahead gearson Yeah, well, I would just say that nothing cannot exist. It's impossible if something exists It's not nothing so it's a category error But Sal what I was going to ask you was um, you you made a really interesting comment about if Abiogenesis is shown to have a natural mechanism Then that would test your faith. Have are you aware of like James tour? I mean, he's one of the biggest like proponents of creation or creationism that Attacks a biogenesis and he Said recently in his debate that he thinks that one day we will find a naturalistic mechanism for a biogenesis And he said that that would just make him say oh, so that's how god did it I'm not aware of that statement I'm not aware of it. I'm not saying he didn't say it and that's fine But for the record, I just want to say sal the water here is fine. So whenever you're ready If Sal or Taylor want to have the final word since the question was directed at you guys originally Otherwise we can move on. Okay And our next question the sinister porpoise $2 Sal and Taylor How are you defining information? I think I should take that one because I studied information theories electrical engineer I do not define it like my fellow ID proponents and because there's so many definitions of information I think it's probably not a good thing for ID proponents or creationists to use that argument And sorry to disagree with maybe anything my partner here my teammate Taylor may have said but um I think organization is is is is better now one measure of kind of an approximation Approximate measure is like, you know, you know functioning genes we can measure if you're adding brand new non-homologous genes to a system That's a rough measure But I I think it's so ill-defined that You'll notice I did not use that argument in any of my discussions. I was trying to talk in terms of probability And that's easier. So that that's a very good pointed question And I wish that the ID world would not use information Too rigorously more like a qualitative thing. So I like the idea of recipe better recipe or or set of instructions because Information theory in thermodynamics is quite the opposite of the way the ID proponents use it and it's going to cause just a mess I'm in the midst of writing a paper on that and So it is a good question and I think actually ID proponents and creationists Should should just leave it alone Because of questions like yours. It's going to it's going to highlight problems in our own Uh language usage Do you have anything to add Taylor? Um, so there's it is kind of abstract like what information means. Um It could be defined as processed order transmitted data. Um, that that's one Definition, but yeah, thank you all right Next question from Megan Marie 499 enjoying the debate and learning a lot Uh, Grayson and Amy are killing it. Happy holidays everyone So a little support there for uh, Grayson and Amy. Thank you so much And our next question is for Taylor Uh, bs. Lewis $2 Taylor if a lot designed would you wish worship him? Yeah, yeah, it depends on you know, what do you mean by a lot? Do you mean Allah as the creator or Allah as the moon god? Which it was in ancient times, but anyway, yeah Well, Yahweh was a canaanite storm god, so No, he's not that's a poor translation of Yahweh just because they have similar Letters does not actually mean it's the same exact word. Thank you Totally different than what you just did with it. No, it was actually named Allah the storms god was not named Yahweh But it was a similar spelling. Thanks All right We got a couple other super chats that came in during q&a, so I didn't have time to add them to the screen The next super chat from dr. Dino with a k $5 paleontologists checking in evolution happens and as we look further back in time life only gets simpler Enjoy the tiny gap you've crammed god into Um, I guess that was a comment towards salin taylor. I assume Dr. Dino is in kent hovent himself No, I don't believe it. Oh, this there's a screen named doctor with a k. So d o k Oh, however, it is in jest of kent hovent if i'm not mistaken Um, you can look at the fossil record. Let's even assume in long ages and you see a progression It doesn't mean that it's natural So embedded in there is a false assumption that this happened naturally I mean if you look at staircases, there's kind of a there is a progression there It doesn't mean that it happens ordinarily without design So the gaps are very big particularly the prokaryote eukaryote or whatever transition That had to be involved in those two architectures. That is very severe. That is a gargantuan gap Um, you know the cellular biologists like taylor would actually appreciate that So I I totally reject that the gaps are getting smaller. They're they're getting gigantic I know a I should picture briefly. It's it's just, you know, just a very brief picture of changetan She was an atheist came from communist china She studied prokaryotes and eukaryotes because she's teaching molecular biology in the process She became a creationist because this just is not that transition does not happen naturally So the gap is enormous. It's not going to be solved by looking at the fossil record, by the way Yeah, the gaps like god's eyes at this point it's a jude Next question, uh, so it's for sal and I believe they're reacting to something you said But they don't clarify the question what you were talking about that moment So I'm hoping as I read the question for you, you'll know what they're talking about So nick 2440 for a dollar 99 or a pound 99 rather sal diseases for what nothing alive yet Um, thank you very much for your question. I was just pointing out It's ridiculous to be invoking amyloids When our examples of them, uh, like in human in humans, they're disease causing so Yes, things proliferate parasites prolifer flow Liferate, uh, they're selected for this is not good And I just pointed out that, you know, even granting that it proliferates and there's a Reproductive competition and reproductive efficiency. That's not how the cell works the uh, the uh, The proportions of the proteins have to be carefully regulated. Otherwise, it's a disaster And I mean, okay Because I study more human biology than the the microbial, but this is the best example If you don't regulate the production insulin you you die I mean, you can't you can't just be leaving it to natural selection It's like, okay that one competes and it makes the most of it. You're going to kill the system But even at the cellular world, there has to be lots of regulation This whole stuff about just competition and making more of it in complexity. That's not going to cut it Um, and really this, you know, the best, you know, you just think about even just taking a working cell and you pierce it And you let its gut spill out. It's not going to self assemble So even if you have competition, uh among the parts, it's not going to it's not going to make something As complex as a functioning cell. That's why I say this is straining it gnats and letting camels through Yeah, that that was an experiment They actually did they put all the components of a living cell there and tried to wait for it to come alive And make it come alive and it just would not even with everything already there But yeah, I think the question was about You know, uh, if it's disease like how how could it be disease causing or, you know Why is this like a problem if there's no life yet? Well, the answer is like that These disease-causing amyloids are not conducive to life. They're literally contrary to life. So There you go If I can weigh on that they're talking about prions. These are prion diseases. These are misfolded proteins that then Replicate throughout the body and cause diseases. But again, these are not relevant to the origin of life We're not talking about prions. We're not talking about prion diseases. We're not talking about Alzheimer's We're talking about amyloids which prion is like a little subset of amyloids that we are not talking about when we're talking about origins. So All right, uh, would taylor salic to finish that off since the question was directed at you straining it gnats letting camels through You don't have any you don't have any regulation of these things. You're not going to make a cell. That's a testable hypothesis All right next super chat from bitter truth 499 This is for amy Not so much a question though more of a challenge Are you willing to debate with me after this in a separate channel at amy? Why yes, I would in fact now I have to plug two things. So I am also having an after show However, I also just want to plug Justin's after show and the discord after show that is fantastic on mdd But by all means Make my day and come on and let's have a back and forth All right, and our last super chat for sal Pointless pappy 499 sal. Do you only worship god because he is the most powerful? Um, I know well, thank you for your super chat and merry christmas I worship god because I believe he is god and I never even thought about it in those terms. I'm sorry. I just you know just seems to me That I look at the world And I see the machines of life, but I also see the tragedies in the world And that says to me that uh, the world is intelligently designed But also cursed just and also cursed in the need of a savior And that's consistent with christian doctrine and that's why I worship the christian god Yeah, and I That's wonderful. Go ahead. I'm sorry go ahead Uh, yeah, I think I was just gonna answer but I really didn't mean to cut you off. But um, yeah, god is the most powerful He's also the most loving and the most merciful and all of the other attributes that people worship him for Um, and uh prions are self propagating amulets by the way. Anyway, sorry But yeah, god is amazing. You should reach out to him. He'll answer All right, we got a last second super chat in here for 99 99 Um pineapple pilata pompadomus I said that without tripping on my face amazing Isn't loving death wrong? Jesus said god isn't there I don't that's all they say loving death if you're going to heaven. Yeah, um, but what do you mean? Jesus said god isn't there. I don't know what verse that is but he definitely told you to pray to the father And I'm all for atheist jesus. Let's go This was 99 99. I mean in dollars That's how it's that yeah Thank you for your challenge. I mean, I feel we we deserve a little bit of at least to try even if I don't answer it well. I mean, um Okay, so about death If you look at this, okay, because I because the question of death and how god allowed it You know the god the creator of life and how he allowed it If you look at the story of snow white I once read this to a woman in my bible study And I read it. I said, okay, take away the evil queen Take away the fact that snow white died in the middle of it And uh, just let them just live happily ever after from the start and she said yeah, the story just loses its beauty The reason is beautiful at the end the reason it's a happily ever after is snow white dies And then she's resurrected And then she marries the prince and then the evil queen dies That's why this this in a strange. This is a strange property that even the poets see And the novelists it's like, you know tragedy actually just makes happier happy endings happier There's a strange quality of of reality where tragedy is an important component to ultimate happiness I mean, that's why we have like the super bowl You have 32 teams competing most of them are going to lose but there's one team that's happy The value of it is made valuable because of the possibility and the reality of loss So it's not so much loving death It's appreciating what it does for us to appreciate what life is so I figured you deserve As good an answer as I could give given your generosity. So thank you And I also just bounce off that and it's I don't even know if I'm disagreeing All just adding on that they they teach in marketing and often in story creation with like script writing and game creation That you need conflict and that conflict makes stories interesting And you know, it used to be they had divided out where tragedy Would be something serious the dramas and then we had our comedies and now we have You know, sometimes a mix of the two But my main thesis just to say conflict always makes stories more interesting It would seem that our audience just doesn't want you guys to go at all so As Amy speaks Ishmael sends five dollars To say science can't prove a lot of things Most lame most namely knowledge reason and logic Well, that's true that science can't prove a lot of things and science The etymology of the word does mean a body of knowledge, but science has become a process science nowadays Gives us the best tool that we have from discerning fact from fiction And if there's a better one out there, I would love to use it, but as far as I'm concerned My uh, I'm in with science Yeah, science doesn't prove anything it works via induction not Uh deduction so it doesn't prove anything like math or logic does um, it it just falsifies certain hypotheses And reifies others and like reifies theories gives evidentiary support It never a hundred percent proves anything at all. So All right. So with that, thank you very much, uh, to all of our dear readers Sal Taylor Grayson Amy for coming out and discussing this with us. Um, it was a great time Uh for those of you still in the audience. Thank you so much for coming hanging out with with us tonight Look, I don't know. I don't know if this is the last debate of 2023 The only way you're gonna know for sure is if you hit that subscribe button Right now to keep track of when the next debate comes. Who knows what'll happen between now In the final day of the year, um, and I want all of you to stay safe this holiday season and with that, um I should have talked quicker bitter truth 499 I was challenging creationists at Amy's channel, dude So that was just I guess The mic has been dropped the glove has come off that's right creationists come and prove aerobia genesis wrong And with that Amy where can they find you? Oh They can find me and my co-host james w and anyone atheist theist liberal or conservative can find us at youtube.com Slash amy newman All right, and greece and I understand your channel is getting close to a benchmark Yeah, that's true. I'm only eight subscribers away from hitting 1000 subs So if you're feeling a little bit at christmas spirit, you know, and you liked what you saw tonight You want to see my other debates on other pseudoscience in not just intelligent design Then check out that channel. I've got a ton of debates ton of content on there And you can also challenge me to a debate on there as well That's based theory based as in the opposite of cringe theory like intelligent design Oh Taylor where can anyone find you any given day on the internet? Uh, I guess on twitter, um, but it's probably not as cringe as a Grayson's youtube I consider that fair game Sal before I let you uh plug any information you like to share with our audience Pointless pappy sends another 499 Directed at you So sal do you feel that we are perhaps straining Atonats jokes aside seeing poetry poetry and suffering is not an excuse for allowing suffering to happen Well, um Pointless pappy was it? Well, thank you again and merry christmas Um, it says in the bible for this momentary light affliction is building us for us an eternal weight of glory this momentary light affliction In the scheme of things the pain that we feel today just seems enormous because it's all that we know um, but I I have faith that um, you know, whatever heaven has to offer how good would it have to be so that All the pain we see all the suffering would seem like it is light after all um, so that question has come up because uh, you know I ideal, you know college kids have come up to me with just horrible tragedies in their life Just horrible things that have happened to them and I I don't mean to make light other afflictions But for someone that knows jesus christ whose life we celebrate in christmas um There is the belief That relative to heaven it will it would look like nothing and that's about the only comfort i could give to someone because what's the alternative um, one reason that I pursued Christianity was I said look guys, I like the skepticism of atheism, but you have no answers For how to deal with pain and why we should hope um But if christ is real if a biogenesis happened by a miracle life came by a miracle And there is intelligent design. There's a glimmer of hope And so I hold on to that so I don't you know I don't look at this as um You know just like point pointless suffering It it does have meaning in christian doctrine the things we suffer have meaning toward our eternal destiny And uh, you know the best I could give is the sports analogy you look at these teens that have suffered But you know when they finally end up victorious all that suffering finally has meaning because of the final victory and um Uh, that's why I hold on to it if the atheist had a better answer. I probably would be in their camp that One I don't think the evidence shows that there's no god and um You know I just don't I just don't find in atheism that there's any hope any reason for living I mean, I've had atheists come up to me and said why should I live the next day and it's like well I can't I can't give you a reason if you're an atheist I If I could just make a comment off that sure. Yeah, I find that One of the hardest things to replace in religion is community is ways of dealing with grief And so I think that what we have to do is come together as just human beings We have to be there for each other and develop I would say healthy ways Of dealing with loss. It's one of the hardest subjects. I think we go through as humans and And so I just would like to put that out there because I I think that it's important to have the word alternative, especially when community is such important Just putting that there and with that sal where can anyone find you on the internet any given day? Evidence and reasons That's the name of the youtube channel if you google it say evidence and reasons youtube you you should be able to find my channel And thank you anyone for Your interest right now. I'm not talking so much about science for this last week I've been talking about a multimillion dollar lawsuit That I'm involved in against my church. So even you atheists might be interested to hear What nasty things happen in the church? All right, sounds exciting All right, so with that we're gonna close things off again If you guys want to know if there's any more debates coming up anytime soon You're gonna have to hit that subscribe button and turn on that notification If you're watching this debate after the fact feel free to share your comments in the comment section below I'm going to head over to the matters now channel and Have an after show you're all of course Welcome. I guess amy you're going to go and do your thing over at your channel So thank you guys all so much for coming the chat though. I'll try and Separate out. Maybe I'll try and jump over there as well Because we need this all supporter awesome moderator at least gents. Well, thank you so much Matters now is knocking on 4 000 subscribers. Um after only two months of being active Um, so yeah, your support is is always welcome over there. Um, and with that Thanks you all for coming and the chat is wishing you all a happy safe holiday season