February 3rd, 2024 - Can We Scientifically Refute Evolution?
In this episode, we embark on a thought-provoking journey to explore the robustness of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Delving into the intricacies of Darwin's proposition, the conversation opens with a critical question: Can Darwin's theory of evolution be scientifically refuted? This question sets the stage for a comprehensive examination of the theory's foundational elements, its historical context, and the advancements in genetics and molecular biology that have both challenged Darwin's original ideas.
Computer-generated transcript:
00;00;00;00 - 00;00;27;26
Speaker 1
so this week we're kind of building on the past few weeks again. And but we're going to focus more into the theory of evolution and talking about that. And then I think you kind of get summarized here on this page, as can Darwin's theory of evolution be scientifically refuted when we've had enough conversations where I think everyone in this room would say, Yes, but how do you articulate that?
00;00;27;26 - 00;00;47;20
Speaker 1
What are the fine points? What are the counterarguments? Those those sorts of things. But to really do that, we need to understand what the theory is at its essence. So how would you guys define the theory of evolution or Darwin's theory of evolution?
00;00;47;22 - 00;00;53;17
Speaker 2
How much was in his theory of the survival of the fittest?
00;00;53;19 - 00;00;54;23
Speaker 1
Yeah, that's like the.
00;00;54;23 - 00;01;10;10
Speaker 2
Birds that had the right beaks or the right wings or whatever is the ones that passed on the traits. And yes, wasn't he breeding pigeons or something? I don't remember me. I mean there was his finches or whatever. Right. But he also breeds something like I just keep.
00;01;10;12 - 00;01;13;28
Speaker 1
Yeah, I know what that exactly lies.
00;01;14;00 - 00;01;16;24
Speaker 2
But then there was some island with finches or something.
00;01;16;26 - 00;01;21;27
Speaker 1
We call up a goose. You know.
00;01;21;29 - 00;02;03;01
Speaker 3
well, I was just saying he's a whole lot of time to actually, when things get it just doesn't make a lot of sense because the gradual stuff, it doesn't hold water when you have when you look at everything that has to exist at the same time to even make life for yourself and random people like you say at Hogwarts discourse, where I mean, there's nothing random about the process and all you're doing is just changing words, definitions of words, and try to come up with some plausible explanation for something for a fact theory.
00;02;03;08 - 00;02;06;10
Speaker 3
Yeah, but you know, so.
00;02;06;13 - 00;02;25;27
Speaker 2
I think there's I think there's elements of truth to it. You know, like randomness, like certain traits will help you survive and those will get passed on to your children. what I'm like in there. And that's true. But like, it gets wrapped up in a bigger theory, which doesn't work. Yeah. And because it's truth mixed with fiction, it's more believable.
00;02;25;29 - 00;03;01;03
Speaker 1
Yeah. Yeah. Usually that's described as macro versus micro evolution, right? Yeah. Micro evolution. We see all the time, right? Like bacteria adjusting to their environment or the beaks on the finches, as Darwin observed or all the varieties of dogs that are come about from selective breeding. So we have that micro aspect. But then again, like you're saying, like the macro side, it's hard to see how that comes out, how, how does those change?
00;03;01;03 - 00;03;26;09
Speaker 1
How so if you think back to the last week, we're talking a lot about DNA and genes and how they functions. And you had those letters. So Darwin's first theory didn't touch on any of that because it just wasn't known. Right. Darwin didn't know about any of that. Stuff like this cell was just it's it's cute as like this black box like in Darwin's age it's like, the cell is interesting.
00;03;26;12 - 00;03;50;20
Speaker 1
We don't really know about it. It's just kind of this little jello thing we can kind of see. But like, that was it. That was all. It was known about cells. And then when they opened this black box of the cell, they found all kinds of craziness. So in Darwin's day there was random, you know, he he coined the survival of the fittest.
00;03;50;20 - 00;04;28;24
Speaker 1
And it was all about the the changes that came about that led to greater survival. They passed on their genes and like that, that was the that was the main thrust of the argument. But then as the cell came in and we learned about DNA, Darwin's theory evolved, if you will. And in that's what's usually called neo-darwinism, which basically takes in, takes Darwin's general principles and expands them to like DNA and all that.
00;04;28;24 - 00;05;11;20
Speaker 1
So they would expand on it, saying that there is random mutations in the DNA which causes minor changes in the organism, that if leads to greater chances of survival in breeding, then you, you pass that trait on. So if you remember last week we talked about the letters of DNA and then like how those functions work. So a mutation of those those amino acid, like the, the nucleotides in the DNA, like a change in those would result in a change in a protein.
00;05;11;23 - 00;05;54;26
Speaker 1
So that is what we know, sort of like that protein changes and then that protein can come in, potentially bring up a new a new function, apparently. So like this this theory really relies on these little changes, you know, like in like how those mutations occur. Typically, you know, it could be just like in like natural cycles. It's like something shifts or like cosmic radiation, like swamps, you know, gets it damages the DNA and it makes it beneficial.
00;05;55;17 - 00;06;06;07
Speaker 2
What about what about, like, what's called, I want to say, dominant versus, like, recessive genes, right? Like we keep reading the dominant ones over and over again.
00;06;06;09 - 00;06;07;18
Speaker 1
Yeah. I mean, like.
00;06;07;20 - 00;06;16;12
Speaker 2
Yeah, like I say, like they say like eventually we won't have blonds anymore because it takes two people with the recessive blond gene to make a blond.
00;06;16;14 - 00;06;17;05
Speaker 1
Yeah.
00;06;17;07 - 00;06;20;19
Speaker 2
So eventually there won't be any anymore. That's what I've heard.
00;06;20;22 - 00;06;46;03
Speaker 1
Yeah. I mean, that sounds right. Yeah, that's like the, the whole like breeding aspect does come into play and like. Well that's, that's the other component that drives evolution that's talked about, I mean survival of the fittest is part of it. But you also have the like more likely to breed aspect. That's where like evolution starts talking about like those birds with the fancy feathers like that has no survival benefit.
00;06;46;05 - 00;07;11;10
Speaker 1
But if it gets them a mate better, then they're able to pass their genes on more. And like that's, you know, it's not like, you know, you can look at blonds that kind of way, but like the fact that it's a recessive gene makes it harder to accomplish something like that. So there's a lot of nuances to what how things play out.
00;07;11;12 - 00;07;38;01
Speaker 1
But like if we go back all the way out in the DNA, a change in the DNA shouldn't like it needs to cause a change in the protein in the protein's function. And that protein function has to have some meaningful benefit to the creature. Like if it if it's neutral, there's no reason to keep that change. If it's harmful, it's going to be less likely to survive in meat.
00;07;38;03 - 00;07;48;21
Speaker 1
So only if it's beneficial and helps them survive well, will we expect that to be carried on.
00;07;48;23 - 00;08;24;17
Speaker 1
But we have these very tiny changes in we're looking for these very macro effects, right? So like there's this idea that we've kind of understand the DNA aspect and the protein aspect and like we even know like, you know, certain genetic diseases cause are caused by specific genes making it malformed proteins. But like how that extends to like body plans and like growing a whole new arm or something like that.
00;08;24;20 - 00;08;46;14
Speaker 1
Like that is something that's still under investigation in science. Like they're not sure how how that works, right? Like we know that DNA drives the protein production and then has effects on the body, but like bigger macro body plan, like certain aspects of our personality and all of that, there's still a lot of gap there.
00;08;46;16 - 00;08;55;23
Speaker 2
I assume it's also safe to argue minor changes in proteins tend to lead to catastrophic problems more than beneficial problems or beneficial attributes.
00;08;55;28 - 00;09;31;28
Speaker 1
Yeah, yeah. We're actually going to talk about that in detail here in a minute. But yes, that is true. Like and well, like there's actually been there's a guy he's his name is Douglas Ask AX and he's part I think he's a fellow of this Discovery Institute at least is very tightly coupled with him but he's a working scientist and he's written a couple of papers on the plausibility of, well, how likely is it that a functional protein would be created based off of the amino acids that make up proteins?
00;09;31;29 - 00;10;00;02
Speaker 1
So, you know, the amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. And then like the DNA is instructions on how to put those amino acids together to form a protein. And then that protein has to fall up all together and then do some function, you know, so he is like, how likely is it that a change in that sequence would be beneficial and create a functional, fully protein?
00;10;00;05 - 00;10;24;04
Speaker 4
And so it was the the experiment or whatever is come up where they've taking they made they can go in cats and stuff like that. Like I wonder if in that process of them doing that, do they come to the conclusion or do they see we're like, okay, we see how we did this and there's no way that this would happen.
00;10;24;07 - 00;10;50;06
Speaker 4
Like in nature, food. Yeah. So it's like, okay, so that they do not even look at that and we're like, okay, so our theories of this, you know, Squirtle turning into a giraffe or something like we just made a cat glowing by splicing this from this. And we can see through that process that that would never, ever happen like that if we hadn't intervened.
00;10;50;06 - 00;10;54;09
Speaker 4
That could not have happened. Yeah, I don't I don't know if that's.
00;10;54;15 - 00;11;22;29
Speaker 1
It's it's a good question. And I think this is my assumption based off of things I've listened to. I think most evolutionists or even, you know, most scientists, because it's the general consensus, still would say, you know, it it it we see it so it happens somehow materialistically. Like we don't really we don't know how exactly it happened, but it obviously it happened because there's the giraffe, you know, like that.
00;11;23;03 - 00;11;27;04
Speaker 1
That's kind of where they go with it. They don't even.
00;11;27;07 - 00;11;31;14
Speaker 5
Well, they have a they have the assumption that they have a billion years.
00;11;31;16 - 00;11;32;16
Speaker 4
To accomplish that.
00;11;32;22 - 00;11;35;28
Speaker 1
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Over the course of.
00;11;35;28 - 00;11;40;28
Speaker 4
A billion years until they figure out that a billion is not enough, we'll just tack on a few more billion more.
00;11;40;28 - 00;12;08;07
Speaker 1
Zeroes along to the end of that. Right. Because the multiverse involved. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's it. Yeah. No I think well you know, I think they would again argue like, well there's probably some mechanism that we haven't discovered yet. Right. Which that's plausible. You know, maybe there's some crazy event or circumstances which makes that happen really easily. We just haven't gotten there yet.
00;12;08;08 - 00;12;36;27
Speaker 1
That would be there. That would be the argument against that. So, you know, it's not it's reasonable. It's just like, is that the best explanation that we have? And I think that's what we ultimately come down to, you know, and that kind of goes to, you know, Stephen Meyers. I mean, one of his main points is like there's so much information in life that it's hard to explain with these naturalistic approaches.
00;12;36;29 - 00;13;18;25
Speaker 1
So what is the most likely explanation? Like, what do we know that creates information? People do We program, we write books, we create music, we have minds, We have reason. We take, we take noise and make something of it. Like that's the attribute of a mind. And he's like, that's that's a more natural explanation. I think that's a that's a that is a explanation that by it's the it's the it's a mechanism that we know about that does this effect why would we not consider it?
00;13;18;27 - 00;13;45;25
Speaker 1
And I think that's one of the primary. And one of the best arguments for intelligent design that I've heard is like, yeah, like you could say, yeah, there might be some mechanism out there that we don't know about, but like, that's unknown territory. That's, that's almost, you know, materialism of the gaps as they don't like materialists would say, you know, God of the gaps.
00;13;45;25 - 00;14;09;01
Speaker 1
But like really there's a materialism of the gaps where it's like, hey, there's some unknown thing that we don't know about yet. We just need to do more and then we'll figure it out eventually. Just a different name. It's just a different it's it's it's the same logical principle. And here it is like, hey, there's actually a cause of information that we know about that we see every day, and that is in mind.
00;14;09;03 - 00;14;45;00
Speaker 1
So why wouldn't we consider that is even like a possibility. And that's I think that's the biggest thing in the scientific community today that just rose me the wrong way is like, sure, I don't I'm not going to say you have to believe that it's intelligent design, but at least give it credence as a plausible theory, like when you can say, you know, there's a multiverse out there with multiple universes and like have nothing about it other than just like some equations that you've made to work to kind of make it all fit together.
00;14;45;00 - 00;15;25;21
Speaker 1
Like there's just like it just seems ludicrous that they wouldn't consider it a legitimate scientific theory because it is like it is like, why wouldn't it be? Yeah. So getting back to kind of Darwin and his evolution is can we scientifically refute it? Darwin himself wrote, If it could be demonstrated that any complex, complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
00;15;25;23 - 00;16;00;27
Speaker 1
And that was from Darwin himself. He was like, Yeah, my theory has an Achilles heel and that Achilles heel is if they can't be, if, if a function cannot be explained by little progressive steps towards that over time, then then my, my theory breaks down. And it's even harder than that though, because if we go back to the effects of a mutation, right, so there's four effects of a mutation.
00;16;00;29 - 00;16;19;23
Speaker 1
It can be beneficial increasing the ability to survive and or reproduce it can be neutral, No change in the ability of the organism to survive or even or reproduce. It can be harmful, which decreases the ability of a survivor reproduce or deadly. It just causes death or sterility.
00;16;19;26 - 00;16;23;06
Speaker 4
What is a I mean, specifically a mutation.
00;16;23;08 - 00;16;58;23
Speaker 1
So if you think of DNA in those letters, it's a change in those letters. A random, random change. Yeah. It's. yeah, yeah, yeah. Because there's no in a materialist worldview, there's no agency to plan those changes. So you're basically, you know, you have a, an organism, a frog, let's say, sitting on a rock and it's hanging out there and a cosmic ray or a piece of radiation or something hits a head some of its DNA and corrupts it in that corruption, you know, spreads.
00;16;58;23 - 00;17;09;10
Speaker 1
And then like it, it can have one of these four effects. It can be deadly or it can be harmful or it can be neutral or beneficial.
00;17;09;12 - 00;17;15;21
Speaker 2
Ah, Ginger's mutation. Let's talk about that on your podcast. You know.
00;17;15;23 - 00;17;16;16
Speaker 1
When your official.
00;17;16;16 - 00;17;18;18
Speaker 2
Opinion on gingers of mutations.
00;17;18;21 - 00;17;27;27
Speaker 1
I'm guessing that there's some sort of genetic anomaly. I don't know. Maybe it's just a genetic trait if.
00;17;27;28 - 00;17;29;09
Speaker 2
There's 1% of your audience.
00;17;29;11 - 00;18;13;03
Speaker 1
Yeah, but so we have these four effects. What and you alluded to it, the vast majority of observations we have fall into the neutral, harmful or deadly categories. Like you think about the genetic diseases that we have today or the genetic genetic disorders. There's a ton of them and all of those come back to some mutation in the DNA that causes a protein to not work as well as it should.
00;18;13;05 - 00;18;46;16
Speaker 1
We're not at all. And that causes effects. And sometimes those are annoying and sometimes those are deadly. Very rarely. Or it's there's only like a few that I would even consider neutral. Like, I don't know if you've seen like Ripley's Believe It or Not or like the shows about Huge Superhumans or whatever. Like there's a genetic disorder that makes your whole leg tendons and ligaments more flexible.
00;18;46;19 - 00;19;05;27
Speaker 1
So, like, they can like, you know, think they're the people that can, like, bend your fingers back to their arm and like they have a of water flexibility, which is kind of cool. And usually they, you know, they, in the past they would have ended up in a circus for doing all kinds of like I don't know what that's called torsion and contortionist.
00;19;05;27 - 00;19;38;27
Speaker 1
Yeah. They're like just natural, like they're genetically predisposed to be that way. But like even that is actually can be harmful because like, they're unable to resist certain things and they have to be very careful about how they move because the body has like there's limits to your body. The reason why you can't just naturally do that is because, like, that's an overextension and your your body's like, no, that's, that's that's not going to be good for you long term.
00;19;38;27 - 00;20;09;07
Speaker 1
Like that's going to happen to like contortionists and people like that. I was watching a VFX show and they talked about contortionists, doing stuff in the industry and they usually have to film it backwards. So like, you know, the zombie movies were in there like all, like messed up and they're like in a super weird position because they got hit with a baseball bat or something like they have to start in that position and then come out of it and then and then reverse it.
00;20;09;07 - 00;20;44;10
Speaker 1
Because if they try to get into a position like that, suddenly, like he can do a lot of harm, like they have to have a very controlled movement into that, into that thing just because their bodies don't have those limits to them. You know, it's kind of like the genetic disorder where you don't feel pain. Right? Like that sounds great in theory, but in reality, those people live very short, like they have shorter lifespans because they just don't know what hurts.
00;20;44;13 - 00;21;15;23
Speaker 1
So they like, you know, they'll rest their hand on the oven and not realize that their hand is burning, you know, like, that's terrible. But like, you know, they're they're just having a conversation and not realizing it. So those are like, you know, neutral to harmful categories and good to get actual beneficial changes. It takes effort. So let's go back to the protein and how it works.
00;21;15;26 - 00;21;44;20
Speaker 1
So we talked like proteins are a string of amino acids and then they fold into a three dimensional shape to get those proteins. To do that requires a very specific sequence, right? Like if you have Legos or something like that, to build a certain structure, you have to put things in the right order. So that by itself makes it difficult.
00;21;44;23 - 00;22;20;18
Speaker 1
there you are. There is also, like many, many proteins don't function independently. They actually have like a like there's protein to protein communication that happens like two proteins fit together perfectly and then like they do some function because they fit together. So that makes it even more difficult because not only do you have to make a change in the one protein, you also have to have a complementary chain change in the in the the fitting piece.
00;22;20;20 - 00;23;03;24
Speaker 1
So like how does that happen randomly? And then it gets more complex because many, many proteins end up forming molecular machinery, so they're just a cog in them, the greater machine. And you know, it has a specific role in that greater system of things. So you can see how this compounds and like Darwin, like the chance mutations can explain, like we know that radiation can damage DNA and cause mutations, but what are the chances of those actually resulting in something beneficial?
00;23;03;27 - 00;23;26;23
Speaker 1
Very, very small. And this is where we get back to the Doug works back in his studies. He was so he's a molecular biologist. I mean, he's realistically studied how rare proper folding of proteins are among protein sequences. He said, Okay, so is.
00;23;26;23 - 00;23;27;26
Speaker 4
He somebody like.
00;23;27;29 - 00;24;01;00
Speaker 1
Current from there? Yeah, he's there. Yep, yep. He's, he's a modern scientist. Today you can the Discovery Institute's YouTube channel. He has quite a bit of he has videos on there or videos related to his work. So yeah, he's a working scientist today. He, he's studied a modest protein that had a length of 150 amino acids. So that's, you know, that's like a reasonably sized protein.
00;24;01;03 - 00;24;37;03
Speaker 1
It's not exceptionally long and there's some shorter ones. It's probably on the like below average side of it. So 150 proteins in length. So that means 150 amino acids in the right sequence. What he was like, what are the odds of forming a stable, functional protein? So you're like you have all the amino acid building blocks. If you put 150 of them in there in some random order, like what are the chances that it'll be some kind of useful protein?
00;24;37;06 - 00;25;27;28
Speaker 1
So the number he came up with is between ten to a 64th and ten to the 69th. No, sorry, that was it's ten to the 74th. That's the number ten of the 74th for context, the number of atoms in the galaxy. So number of atoms in the galaxy is ten to the 64th is ten to the 69th. So the chances of a functional protein coming out of 100 with 150 amino acids in length, the odds of that forming randomly are less than odds of a blind person randomly picking a random atom in our galaxy.
00;25;28;01 - 00;26;09;21
Speaker 1
So pretty small, if not pretty much involved. It's like a needle in a haystack times a million. Like every atom in the galaxy, just the number of atoms in your body would make be impossible. So the chances are very, very small. And you can fairly confidently say that the chances of a the chances to get that from a random mutation or natural selection are impossible.
00;26;09;23 - 00;26;41;20
Speaker 1
It's just there's not enough time in the entire universe. You know, maybe if you, you know, once you get into a multiverse, potentially you have enough time, like it's an infinite scale. So, you know, everything that could happen would happen, but still, that's just for a single protein. So an example of a protein that you've probably heard of would be hemoglobin.
00;26;41;23 - 00;27;29;23
Speaker 1
So that's like the the the protein in your blood that carries oxygen throughout your body. That protein has, let's see where it lost my spot here in this. So, you know, you're getting told that protein is very specifically structured so it has four oxygen binding sites in it. And so there's been research done that basically any changes to that, that protein are fairly catastrophic.
00;27;29;23 - 00;28;13;25
Speaker 1
And there's genetic disorders around that specific protein. And, you know, most of them are deadly. But, you know, I think some potentially you can live on, but, it's very it's a very specific thing. So this kind of so this protein function and it obviously is very difficult to to get those changes. And then we talked about how like that's just for a single protein and then you scale that to protein to protein communications.
00;28;13;27 - 00;28;50;27
Speaker 1
Now you've just by a factor of who knows how much made it more complex. You know, you have to have changes that are happening on both sides and then you get to this idea that. Michael Behe and if you've heard of him, but he's one of the, I don't know, founding fathers of intelligent design, I would say, especially his book called The Black Box, Black Box, Darwin's Black Box, he coined the term irreducible complexity, which we've talked about in previous sessions.
00;28;50;27 - 00;28;59;26
Speaker 1
But like if we dive into it more, how would you guys define iridescent, irreducible complexity.
00;28;59;28 - 00;29;05;25
Speaker 2
Irreducible is so you can't reduce it.
00;29;05;27 - 00;29;06;15
Speaker 1
Right?
00;29;06;18 - 00;29;19;09
Speaker 2
So I guess the simplest form of complexity, like you can't get any less complex. Yeah. And what something is too, in order to be a thing.
00;29;19;12 - 00;29;45;22
Speaker 1
Yeah. Yeah. That's pretty much that's pretty much it. One of the classic example would be a mouse trap, right? I think a classic mouse trap. You have the board, you have the spring, you have the bar, and like we have the little piece that holds the thing back. If you took one of those parts out, you would no longer have a mouse trap, right?
00;29;45;25 - 00;30;22;17
Speaker 1
You need all of those bits for it to function as a mouse trap. So that is an example of irreducible complexity. It's a system that every piece is required for it to do its function. And there are so many examples of that in biology that think it's not funny like the protein, protein communications, right? Like those are, you know, those aren't super complex, but they need those shapes like they needs those puzzle pieces have to fit together.
00;30;22;20 - 00;31;08;03
Speaker 1
But then you start talking about. So one of the classic examples in biology is the bacterial for Jelen. And so what is the bacterial in yellow? It is the tail, if you will, of a bacterium that helps it move through an environment. So it's like its fishing tail click its tail and we're talking a cell, right? So it's very small single cell argument in these, these fine gentlemen's when examined, are basically rotary engines like the, like the barrel.
00;31;08;06 - 00;31;38;29
Speaker 1
And you can see this picture here. But like it it's it's a it's a rotary engine Like it's it's a it it it has a shaft. It has a rotor. It has a U joint. It has a propeller. Like these are all things that engineers we've invented. We've reinvented this. Right. Like for our boats and for, you know, some cars have similar things in it.
00;31;39;00 - 00;32;08;13
Speaker 1
Like, like the shafts. You not like the fact that we have independently designed a similar thing that does a similar function and then we find it in a bacterium is, I don't even know how to put it to words. It's, it's kind of flabbergasting in a way. It's, it's Why would we find that? Well, it's because it's, it's like it's engineered, right?
00;32;08;13 - 00;32;40;19
Speaker 1
Like in and this is where irreducible complexity comes in. But if you were to I think it's it's down on this page. Okay. So there is some there's a there's a area of research called genetic knock out experiences. And it's basically how much genetic information can we knock out and make this thing still work. So this has been done with Vigilant and the Fajon fails to assemble or function properly.
00;32;40;19 - 00;33;05;23
Speaker 1
If any one of its approximate 1035 genes is removed. So it's an all or nothing thing. So it takes 35 genes. If you think back to a gene, a gene is a thing that codes a specific protein in the DNA. So it's it's it's you know, it's I think this is correct, but it's around 35 different proteins that are being put together to create this vision.
00;33;05;25 - 00;33;34;10
Speaker 1
And if any one of those is knocked out, the vision doesn't function. So how did that come about in a systematic, small changed way? How do you get all 35 pieces all to fit together and all be put together correctly in an in a systematic, evolutionary, explainable way?
00;33;34;13 - 00;33;46;29
Speaker 5
Darwin wasn't able to see things that Small does, but his theory no. So it doesn't even seem like it's even such a thing anymore. Especially being able to see things that we're able to see these days.
00;33;47;01 - 00;34;25;25
Speaker 4
There's a concept scalable like so. And this like micro example, yeah, I a Darwin to be able to see that but the truth of the problem, you know, maybe this particular mechanism wouldn't scale that, but you can still take that the truth of that problem looks like if any of these things had gone just the way you know that reality could be scalable to where yeah, like Darwin or we could observe that this is ridiculous to make this claim that you that this could happen this way because it's like that just doesn't it just doesn't work.
00;34;25;27 - 00;35;11;21
Speaker 1
Yeah I think I think what happens on a scale is as you get into like what Darwin could observe, there's a lot more assumptions, right. Like, so Darwin just saw cells as little goofballs and like he's like all these he observed micro evolution and he just projected that forward, which is reasonable. It's, it's not unreasonable to think that he's like, well if these birds beaks can change based off of the food that they're eating or the food supply, If you give that enough time, maybe a bird can turn into something else because, you know, if they can lead to small changes, then why couldn't only the bigger changes?
00;35;11;24 - 00;35;40;27
Speaker 1
I mean, that's reasonable. But when you start getting into so with like I think what's interesting about the for Joel is like it's something that we can see like it's it's a a much more simplified example right. Like we there might even be chapters on this in the future, but like we don't really understand how DNA affects body planes or bigger multi protein examples, right?
00;35;40;27 - 00;36;03;14
Speaker 1
We can say, okay, genes affect proteins because that's what they code for. But how do proteins tell the cells in an embryo how to form the body? Like we don't know is the answer. You know, and there's a lot of research going into that trying to figure it out. And presumably there's some explanation that we don't know about yet.
00;36;03;16 - 00;36;27;18
Speaker 4
And there are as far as the in the changes that they either kill or do nothing or, you know, all that. So it would seem like there's at least some sort of changes that are either, yeah, neutral or because otherwise we would all look the same and we you know, like if everything's put together in such a way, then everything should be the same.
00;36;27;18 - 00;36;39;06
Speaker 4
But there's apparently an obvious thing and we're all, you know, reasonably healthy and all that kind of stuff. So, so it's like there, there are and there's a ton of variation, but yeah.
00;36;39;08 - 00;37;19;08
Speaker 1
So yeah, yeah, there's, there's range in organisms, right. Like then in like different organisms have different ranges like obviously dog breeds like wolves gave us a huge variety of dogs. You know, you have to what was and was like in everything in between and then humans like it. We all are unique in some way and all have different you know so there are what seems to me like operating limits that that are that make sense and like in like how that happens is still not very well understood.
00;37;19;11 - 00;37;44;24
Speaker 1
But with this vigilantly we can see all the proteins that go into making it. We can say, okay, look, these are the genetic markers, the mark for these proteins. And if we damage one that the genome doesn't work. So it's it's a much more tangible thing than like, I turn up, it's like today in science, you can't turn off a gene that makes it so you don't grow arms, right?
00;37;44;27 - 00;38;14;07
Speaker 1
Like it's much more complicated than that. Like arms are not, there's not a protein arm correlates and and we have found you know, where there is a protein flagellum correlation that we can see. So it's like this it's like it's part of the story of life that we can see in a in a more knowledgeable way. Right. So there's less assumptions.
00;38;14;10 - 00;38;48;12
Speaker 1
And I think like the fact that that itself is so phenomenal. The things we don't understand have to just be even more so, you would presume, right? Like if we can't even explain how DNA gives us arms and legs, like it has to be something pretty advanced. You know, it's a very complicated story, whereas the film is a much more simplified organism, but it's still amazing.
00;38;48;12 - 00;39;23;16
Speaker 1
It's engineered, like speaking about the the dome. So it's a self-assembled Rotary rotary engine. The motor is driven by a flow of protons, which is pretty interesting and worth looking into. It spins in two directions or in reverse. It can change directions in a quarter, turn it operate, it operates around 18,000 rpm and can spin at 10,000 plus rpm over 30 Genes produce over 30 structural parts.
00;39;23;16 - 00;39;53;10
Speaker 1
According to one study. It might have up to 100% energy efficiency, which is something we have never come close to. So now it resembles things that we've done, but in a lot of ways it's vastly better, vastly better, which is just crazy. It's like we think we're pretty smart and we've engineered some pretty amazing things. But the tail of a bacteria is blowing out of the water.
00;39;53;10 - 00;40;18;06
Speaker 1
Our best and finest engineer, yours. I mean, that leaves you scratching your head. Okay, so Darwin's black box. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. It's like the it's the book that, like, put i-D on the map and it's like a legit scientific conversation. Who wrote that microbe? Yeah.
00;40;18;09 - 00;40;25;27
Speaker 3
So did you have video of the landing somewhere? yeah, that's where I'm from. Yeah. Yeah. And that was an excellent.
00;40;26;00 - 00;40;29;29
Speaker 1
man, that's some good dozens. Some good minds all together. Yes.
00;40;30;01 - 00;40;36;19
Speaker 2
Every time you say his name, I just think of Michael Jackson.
00;40;36;21 - 00;41;09;03
Speaker 1
Well, now you won't forget. Okay, So the that will comes out. The scientific response was, you know, mostly like, wow, that's interesting. But evolution is obviously we're like now, you know, that's not they knew they needed a rebuttal. So they they went back and they basically came up with this idea of co-option. So co-option is that is evolution.
00;41;09;06 - 00;41;36;19
Speaker 1
Evolution is counterargument to irreducible complex ity. And the argument basically goes like this co-option is to take in use for another person purpose In evolutionary biology, it's highly suspect speculative mechanism where blind and unguided processes causes biological parts to be borrowed and used for other purposes. So basically the idea is this. So let's see the vagina as an example.
00;41;36;23 - 00;42;18;15
Speaker 1
There are parts of the finger and they're saying to get to that iridescent, irreducibly complex thing in a series of small changes, what could have happened is that individual parts could have been used for other things in a in a lower, with, with less complexity. So I'd say the, the shaft protein, whatever that is, it was used for some other purpose and the rotary part that was used for some other purpose.
00;42;18;17 - 00;42;30;12
Speaker 1
And so they, they have these, these simpler parts we're used to, to make other systems.
00;42;30;15 - 00;42;33;20
Speaker 6
Or.
00;42;33;23 - 00;42;52;08
Speaker 1
Excuse me they, they were used like they were used for other things and then they eventually were like, but we don't need we don't need that purpose anymore. And we're going to all kind of come together this short form, this rotary. Joan.
00;42;52;10 - 00;42;55;17
Speaker 5
They say, and randomly on their own or by an outside force.
00;42;55;19 - 00;43;00;03
Speaker 1
This would be natural processes only. So so the.
00;43;00;03 - 00;43;04;14
Speaker 2
Tail was used for something else and the engine was used somewhere else.
00;43;04;21 - 00;43;26;22
Speaker 1
Yeah. And then, like, you can have multiple steps of that, right? So like the tail could have been like a shorter version that was used to move something around inside the cell and I'm just making stuff up. But like, you know, like, it wasn't necessarily like the final part was there, but like some simpler version of that part had some other use so mashed.
00;43;26;24 - 00;43;30;12
Speaker 2
So I can take a desktop computer, rearrange the parts to make a laptop.
00;43;30;14 - 00;43;58;14
Speaker 1
Yeah, something like that. Yep, yep, yep. And, and that right there gets at one of the counter arguments to coding co-option. Right. You could put all the pieces of a desktop computer in a box and shake it and never get the laptop right, because the order in the assembly of those parts requires instructions. Where do those instructions come from?
00;43;58;17 - 00;44;21;01
Speaker 1
Like that information, Right. Like you need to know that the the hard drive plugs into the motherboard and you need it or the power supply goes to this for certain plug like you like. Those are things you need to know in order to do it. And the question is, is there a natural process that can assemble things? They work that way.
00;44;21;03 - 00;44;45;09
Speaker 1
And, you know, the the evolutionary argument was like, yeah, we had enough time and you have the right circumstances. Maybe the harddrive got plugged in and like that, that formed some kind of use for function. And so like they can kind of spin it to where it works, but like it's, it's, it's theoretical. It could work sort of situation.
00;44;45;11 - 00;44;46;13
Speaker 1
It's demonstrated to.
00;44;46;13 - 00;45;11;06
Speaker 4
Work. It's still making the question of agency though of yeah you know and then so okay so yeah you shake the box up and maybe you don't get a fully assembled computer but you do happen to get this, you know plug happened to plug into this, but then what makes nature whatever it's going to be called to say, Hey, let's keep doing that.
00;45;11;08 - 00;45;47;02
Speaker 1
Yeah, yeah, exactly. There's a lot of the way evolution theory and proponents talk about it. It sounds plausible on the surface, like, okay, yeah, sometimes. So the AI is sometimes used as a theory to do simply complex organ, for example. And like, that's been a I think it might even be in the it be his black box book as an example.
00;45;47;04 - 00;46;44;21
Speaker 1
And evolutionary biologists have come up with a pseudo plausible explanation of how that could right that the expert net explanation is some go something along the lines of somehow cell got got a mutation where it became light sensitive. So it was it wasn't like an image or anything like that. It was just sensitive to light in that cell multiplied and got hooked up to the brain so that you know something like a tardigrade or some really tiny, simple organism ism was able to say, if I move towards the light, I get a better environment.
00;46;44;24 - 00;46;49;05
Speaker 1
And like that was the foundations of the AI. And then, you know, and so.
00;46;49;08 - 00;46;55;10
Speaker 4
That was the thing able to do to decide what is it, Is it better like.
00;46;55;12 - 00;47;05;12
Speaker 1
Well if it according to evolution, it doesn't. It's just like, this is a helpful bonus now that I have as a new baby version of this.
00;47;05;12 - 00;47;09;05
Speaker 4
Yeah, but it's still like what is helpful mean and what you like.
00;47;09;11 - 00;47;15;10
Speaker 1
Yeah, well I think that goes back to it makes you survive or reproduce more.
00;47;15;13 - 00;47;16;24
Speaker 4
All right.
00;47;16;27 - 00;47;21;07
Speaker 1
Because like that helpful is defined that way. It's like, it makes by whom?
00;47;21;07 - 00;47;50;11
Speaker 4
By what and by how? Like, how how does this, you know, multi, barely multi celled organism able to even mean even without further thought. Yeah. Come to some form of conclusion to whatever level that this is what is what is helpful, what is unhelpful. Why is it you know so then maybe we're getting more into the philosophy of it.
00;47;50;14 - 00;47;51;25
Speaker 4
Yeah.
00;47;51;27 - 00;48;32;23
Speaker 1
Well I mean it's like the light receptors. So like let's say it's an algae eating bacteria and it has a light sensitive component to it. If it moves more towards light, maybe it finds more algae and then it can eat more and then produce more like that's how they would explain it. Okay. I do think there are things of what you're saying that are true, but it's it's like that's often what you find is like you can create plaza more arguments but like demonstrating those is a whole nother can of worms that we usually don't get.
00;48;32;25 - 00;49;04;08
Speaker 1
Like you see the same thing for things like how did humans first evolve the ability to communicate like language well, and they have certain things like that that they can explain or how to die or to become domesticated. Like there's evolutionary coco evolution sort of theories on that. I mean, they're very plausible, but like the mechanisms that drive them aren't clear, Li explained.
00;49;04;10 - 00;49;22;04
Speaker 1
They're just like, This is plausible. You know, like it's not is nothing scientific. And that's where I go back to, like the materialism of the gaps. Like it's like, yeah, this could kind of happen if you think about it, but we don't really show the mechanisms of it happening. So it's kind of on faith.
00;49;22;06 - 00;49;30;07
Speaker 5
So that need mind, no matter what way you look at it, you need to mind before any of this could ever possibly.
00;49;30;09 - 00;50;11;17
Speaker 1
Yeah. Yeah. And again, we're back to that argument of like, what's the simplest explanation for what we observe? The only thing that we know that creates this kind of information is a mind. So therefore, the mind did it, you know, like that's that's a very simple argument. So all of this to be said, like we think and it's frustrating that the materialistic paradigm in science is so against these things, it just doesn't make sense.
00;50;11;17 - 00;50;44;20
Speaker 1
It's not really in the spirit of what science is, because who is to say that it's any like it's a it's a very good explanation and you don't have to subscribe to it to say it's a valid theory. But that's not that's not how it usually goes down. Usually intelligent design is like if you go to a if you look up intelligent design on Wikipedia, we describes it as a pseudo science, which is basically like, you know, it's not a grown up science.
00;50;44;22 - 00;50;50;14
Speaker 1
You know, they can, they can dabble. It's it's not really legitimate, you know, it's just pseudo science.
00;50;50;14 - 00;50;52;21
Speaker 4
Just log in and change that.
00;50;52;24 - 00;51;00;26
Speaker 1
I'm sure people have tried, but yeah, that's, that's the way it's looked at.
00;51;00;29 - 00;51;12;05
Speaker 2
Well, W.H.O. says chiropractic care is a pseudoscience. This.
00;51;12;07 - 00;51;14;22
Speaker 1
Yeah, I believe that.
00;51;14;24 - 00;51;18;24
Speaker 6
So let's go.
00;51;18;24 - 00;51;27;22
Speaker 2
Stir the pot a little bit. I don't know. I told that to my chiropractor once. He didn't care for it.
00;51;27;25 - 00;51;30;20
Speaker 1
And he's like, The joke's on you because you're paying me.
00;51;30;23 - 00;51;36;18
Speaker 6
Right before $40.
00;51;36;21 - 00;51;58;05
Speaker 1
So let's think back to the opening question. Can we scientifically review evolution and then to do that, like maybe some questions around that, more specific questions, do you think there are any explanations thus far scientifically that explains ourselves complexity sufficiently?
00;51;58;07 - 00;51;59;18
Speaker 2
You said that one more time.
00;51;59;20 - 00;52;06;20
Speaker 1
Do you think there are any explanation, scientific explanations on why cells are so complex?
00;52;06;23 - 00;52;31;09
Speaker 4
So I started off by kind of going over what this evolution. So maybe let's review design or whatever, like and you say, can we do the same? So what's meant by scientifically what's, what's the, what's the requirement to to count to count as I thought the same thing. Yeah.
00;52;31;12 - 00;52;34;29
Speaker 2
I guess the science just what you can see here and feel. So everything is science, right?
00;52;35;00 - 00;52;58;01
Speaker 4
Like I know that there is scientific method and I know that evolution is supposedly a thing like, like defining like, but, but those are words that are used so freely that and without definition that a lot of argument comes from. You know, you're using it this way and I'm using it this way, and we're both assuming that we're kind of using it in sort of the same way.
00;52;58;01 - 00;52;59;11
Speaker 2
Trust the science. Okay.
00;52;59;11 - 00;53;02;09
Speaker 1
Yeah, it's stressful science.
00;53;02;11 - 00;53;03;15
Speaker 6
know, so.
00;53;03;22 - 00;53;10;29
Speaker 4
So for the sake of maybe at least this conversation, like what's matched by scientifically can you to say what's in it for scientifically?
00;53;11;06 - 00;53;17;03
Speaker 1
Yeah, that's a great, great question. How, how would you guys answer that question and.
00;53;17;06 - 00;53;24;11
Speaker 4
Google answering a question? And the question is very, very simple, very simple politician.
00;53;24;16 - 00;53;27;22
Speaker 2
You run for.
00;53;27;24 - 00;53;31;11
Speaker 1
We've moved into the discussion phase of the mystery.
00;53;31;14 - 00;53;39;09
Speaker 2
So I don't think we know or understand why or how it works completely. I think that might be what you're.
00;53;39;11 - 00;53;41;13
Speaker 1
For, the definition of science.
00;53;41;13 - 00;53;52;16
Speaker 2
And so I don't think we know with with this, you know, 100% how everything within the body works and how it works and how it came free right there. I think it's a whole theory.
00;53;52;19 - 00;54;20;13
Speaker 4
So you can so part of the thing with the scientific stuff, like where you have like so you perform an experiment well that the test of the validity of that experiment is peer review. And so can it be replicated and then produce another kind of stuff. So for the sake of so we're going to say for the sake of this conversation at least, and hope and give you hope would be more universal because isn't that supposed to be?
00;54;20;13 - 00;54;51;28
Speaker 4
The thing with science is that it's universal, even though it doesn't seem to be used that way. We can say, okay, for the sake of this conversation, scientifically, the parameters to justify it or to to count as scientific is is there a peer review, more repeatable experimental environment where we can test the parameters and and then reproduce it?
00;54;52;05 - 00;54;54;05
Speaker 4
Yes, something like that.
00;54;54;07 - 00;55;25;04
Speaker 1
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'd say you're along the right lines of thinking in like your question gets a whole, a whole box of thought, right. Like defining what science is is a very difficult thing for even scientists to do. Oftentimes you hear things about the scientific method, like what are our modes of sensory input, like our test instruments and like our physical senses.
00;55;25;06 - 00;55;51;28
Speaker 1
And it quickly comes to one of the founding principles of science is built on top of philosophy. So philosophy was kind of like the first science, if you will, like which, you know, philosophy is the art of understanding and rational, like rational thought that can we think through things? What does it mean to think at all? And what can we trust in our senses?
00;55;51;28 - 00;56;28;26
Speaker 1
Like those are classic philosophical questions and the what is science quickly gets into this big, muddy, philosophical and tangible like very interesting but hard to nail down thing. So often times you hear science is, you know, the process of the scientific method and then backed up by peer review and then you got scientific data. But that's where science stops because like, it's not like scientists say, here's my data.
00;56;28;29 - 00;56;57;03
Speaker 1
In the end, they draw conclusions from their data right like that. That's, you know, a fundamental part. It's like, we observed X, so that means why? And that's that. So means Y is where evolution fits in, right? So you go back to Darwin in the finches, he observed the finches having varying beaks based off of their food supply.
00;56;57;05 - 00;57;39;20
Speaker 1
So he concluded that environmental and survival aspects would select for specific traits, and that over significant time in which like, like that first part was observed. So I would say that lands under science, right? We have we have observed things changing to adapt to their environments. The question is, do things change to become new species? And then then that begs the question what is a species?
00;57;39;23 - 00;58;20;17
Speaker 1
But, you know, or do do birds turn into something fundamentally different? And what what does that mean? So like there's parts of evolution in Darwin's theory that I think do fall under science. I think where it gets more difficult is in that is in explaining it here, like doesn't explain everything, you know, it does it and why it's a theory at the end of the day is because it's not been proven in like science has had almost 100 years to prove evolution on a macro scale.
00;58;20;19 - 00;58;58;19
Speaker 1
And most scientists will back. This is a guess, I would say if you polled most scientists, most would say that the scientific theory of evolution is most definitely true, like almost certainly true or ever. But if you go to the data, if you start looking at the data of what there's been lots of studies around biology and like the study of life and how things evolve and like some of it is being used to, you know, understand population growth and all this kind of stuff.
00;58;58;21 - 00;59;48;13
Speaker 1
But if you look at like, have we observed things changing species? No, we haven't. We have not seen that sort of thing. And you're like, well, we just haven't had enough time. But the thing is like for bacteria, you can get hundreds of thousands of life cycles of a bacterium in, you know, a short amount of time. So like there have been studies trying to evolve bacterium to have specific traits and they've been pseudo successful in the sense that I can't the exact details of the story, the exact experiments, I'm going to kind of make it up a little bit, but it's along these lines, you know, there's been studies where they've, they've taken like
00;59;48;13 - 01;00;19;04
Speaker 1
bacterium or yeast cultures and tried to expose them to, you know, like ammonia, which should kill them. But they, you know, start out with low doses and then they kind of they build up to the yeast cultures tolerance to ammonia. Then they're like, hey, look, this is evolution or is it adaptation to their environment? Because what they were what ended up being the results of those studies and I'd have to go look exactly what the study was.
01;00;19;04 - 01;00;59;28
Speaker 1
So don't take the specifics but like it end up turning out that, yeah, they got more adaptable and was able to live in more ammonia filled environments, but at the cost of, you know, some specific other aspect of it. So it wasn't straight up beneficial change, it was at the cost of some other change. So like there's another more recent book by BP and I'm blanking on the name, maybe it'll come to me before we end, but he talks about this idea and this is what I subscribe to.
01;01;00;02 - 01;01;29;05
Speaker 1
This is a little bit of a tangent, but within a species or, you know, let's use the biblical term because I think it's even more helpful here within a kind. There is a certain range of adapt adaptability in that kind, and we see that in his in this book he gives an example, and I may have mentioned this before in other classes, but he gives the example of polar bears.
01;01;29;08 - 01;02;03;16
Speaker 1
So polar bears are, you know, very similar to black bears, and they have some specific mutations that make them more adaptable to cold environments. In their very specific adaptation. There are actually very specific genetic changes, like one of which makes the bear able to digest fat better because, you know, like a polar bears diet is like seals, which are like all fat here's like fat balls.
01;02;03;18 - 01;02;04;25
Speaker 1
So identify with that.
01;02;04;26 - 01;02;11;14
Speaker 6
Yeah, I make t shirts is like.
01;02;11;17 - 01;02;40;07
Speaker 1
so the American can digest and use more of that fat. You know, another one is like around their fur and their coats. They have special adaptations. I think like their their hair is hollow. So it's more insulators. And like those are specific changes and like, we can trace those down from, you know, the bear kind and we can see that that polar bears been adapted to these cool environments.
01;02;40;09 - 01;03;32;12
Speaker 1
The thing is, is the, the, the changes that resulted in the polar bear, although the changes were beneficial for the creature to live in an environment, they were ultimately destructive in nature. So the the proteins that were changed performed worse, like they were like handicapped in a sense to resolve it in these adaptations that were beneficial. So like, it's this weird combination of like specification in like you have this kind with all this potential and then the kind gets put in specific environments in it in a in it like shrinks its potential and then it gets more specified and shrinks in potential.
01;03;32;14 - 01;03;55;15
Speaker 1
You can see a similar thing in in domesticated dogs, right. Like you have a wolf and it has this certain wide range of adaptability weighing huge differences in size and stuff like that. But when you get a Chihuahua, you can't go from a Chihuahua back to a wolf, Right? It's one directional and that's because it's corruptive in nature.
01;03;55;18 - 01;04;23;20
Speaker 1
But it's it's to its to specify for a environment then adapt to an environment. So this is the kind of view that he paints in this book. So like the that there are aspects of evolution in that that are true. Right things adapt to their environment and survival of the fittest applies like you get a polar bear that was slightly better at digesting fat, lived a bit more and was able to reproduce more.
01;04;23;20 - 01;04;54;03
Speaker 1
So then that gene got carried off. And now you went from a black bear to a polar bear. And the thing that's harder to explain is kind of kind jobs like that is something we have not observed in scientific data. So getting back to the original question of like, can science explain these things, I would say it can explain some things, but not everything.
01;04;54;07 - 01;05;22;18
Speaker 1
And then, like scientists use theories and I'm going to use materialism of the gaps to say, you know, it's plausible. It goes back to their fundamental worldview. And this is also getting back to philosophy like a materialism tenet that that everything like there's this idea in the scientific community that if you can't explain it materialistically, it's not science.
01;05;22;21 - 01;05;44;23
Speaker 1
But is that attitude that this should be part of how we define science? I think I think that's the root of the intelligent design and science rift or even, you know, religious and science rift. You know, scientists are like, no, we can only stay within this materialistic worldview existing. That's what we can test. That's what we can observe.
01;05;44;23 - 01;05;52;19
Speaker 1
And I think there's some argument there. But was science often crosses the line into philosophy.
01;05;52;22 - 01;06;25;01
Speaker 4
And so yeah from the science of materials. Yeah. But like, is it the only thing you can test because scripture tells us to test the spirits tells us to, you know, test against, you know. So there's, so it's like there's this explicit ending that's been fabricated between the material and the, and the spiritual and the even though that doesn't really exist, like, like we, we live in a in a material and spiritual world.
01;06;25;04 - 01;06;54;02
Speaker 4
And so yeah, there's there seems to be there's, there's separation. But at the same time they're, they're, they're, they're not you. Yeah. I don't know that we have the capacity like, I don't know I, we can, we can experience some aspect of the, I mean the spiritual certainly seems to be more limited in our experience or understanding to the, to the physical, but at least at this point.
01;06;54;08 - 01;06;59;13
Speaker 4
And then, you know, and then you have the new Earth, they will be able to understand both perfectly whatever that's going on.
01;06;59;19 - 01;07;27;26
Speaker 1
That's, you know, yeah, I think that's another good philosophical question because it comes down to what can we measure and observe, right? So I think we can kind of like, like we feel the spirit working, but how do you tangibly measure or describe that in some way? Like it? That's where it eludes science, right? Like you can't nail it down.
01;07;27;29 - 01;07;49;05
Speaker 1
Like we don't have like a spiritual radar, right? Like it's, it's, it's much more it's, it's at least from my perspective, it's a much more different thing. If you said like it's just it's like it's this other realm, if you will, that we don't have instruments to detect.
01;07;49;08 - 01;07;50;16
Speaker 4
Also like an unseen.
01;07;50;18 - 01;07;53;13
Speaker 1
It is like that.
01;07;53;15 - 01;07;55;19
Speaker 6
Voice.
01;07;55;21 - 01;07;57;00
Speaker 4
Which you probably hear more about that.
01;07;57;00 - 01;08;26;09
Speaker 1
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because like I think if, you know, if someone invented a unseen realm detector of some kind, would would the scientific community then more openly adopt that realm? It's like, yeah, now we can measure it now. Like now it even like becomes material like right. That's the definition of material is something we can experience directly in foundationally.
01;08;26;11 - 01;09;00;09
Speaker 1
So then is it even really, you know, is it, is it even spiritual anymore? You know, like I think like there's this there's this purposeful separation between and this is philosophy is purposeful separation between material. What we experience in this realm that we are in and this thing that we vaguely have intuition about, that we just can't, you know, it's what theology has been after since the start of mankind that we have in our souls to some degree.
01;09;00;11 - 01;09;03;04
Speaker 4
It's almost like someone put eternity in our hearts.
01;09;03;05 - 01;09;05;08
Speaker 6
Yeah, Yeah.
01;09;05;10 - 01;09;06;18
Speaker 1
It is like that.
01;09;06;21 - 01;09;26;27
Speaker 4
Wasn't it? So it wasn't the way back in the day. That philosophy is the mother of science and theology is her husband. It wasn't that long ago when philosophy and theology were. Yeah, like there all that sort of like in the, at the collegiate level and everything that Yeah.
01;09;26;29 - 01;09;29;15
Speaker 1
That, that's how university started right there.
01;09;29;16 - 01;09;36;16
Speaker 4
It was just like, well yeah of course we're going to have philosophy and theology together. Yeah, they're different, but yet they're inseparable.
01;09;36;19 - 01;10;00;08
Speaker 1
Yeah. And even science was in that like, right, Like that was all the same thing, you know? And, and it's, it's split into that. I think that's where scientists become uncomfortable because they have had they have ignored that side of the realm. They're like, we can't measure that. We can't do anything with that, but we can do something with this.
01;10;00;10 - 01;10;13;28
Speaker 1
And so they form their theories based off of these assumptions that that other side doesn't exist. So you have to come up with things that materialism of the gaps because how how else do you explain it?
01;10;14;00 - 01;10;33;27
Speaker 2
It reminds me of the story of the guy who whatever long ago he figured out that doctors that were washing their hands were killing their patients as much. So he's like, there's something like invisible, you know, that's killing these patients and you need to wash your hands. And everybody thought he was insane. I think they could see how they could measure it.
01;10;34;03 - 01;11;10;10
Speaker 1
If Chelsea was here, she would know exactly. I think it might have been John Glenn, Lester, like Listerine guy. It might be that guy. At least I know. So the Listerine guy, like the company massaging Listerine, like the guy who started it was fundamentally like he was at the heart of germ theory and like, understanding that, so we created a huge mouthwash business and also, you know, save billions of people with one understanding germ theory that was still here because you'd be able to go on it, conceive of that stuff.
01;11;10;10 - 01;11;41;11
Speaker 1
But, you know, it's amazing. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. And it's all irreducibly complex. Systems require a lot of components to be in place at the same time, in the same order to function. And we talked about this a little bit, but like how does like I think irreducibly complex, like the idea of irreducibly complexity makes sense to people. Like we have even this, you know, microphone sitting on the table.
01;11;41;13 - 01;12;12;09
Speaker 1
I can only take a certain percentage of the parts off of this before it would like. There's a point where it's functioning and then not like there's not like this gradual decrease in functionality. As I take parts off of it, like it's on or off. And I'd like there is some amount of critical components which makes that make this thing so it's the least amount of components and it's still functioning.
01;12;12;11 - 01;12;36;25
Speaker 1
And that's the idea of here is, you know, more complexity. And we talked about co-option being a counterargument, like how does that rate as an argument in your ass as mine after talking about it, like the idea that these parts for this microphone could have been used for, you know, this chair and then, you know, they got repurposed into microphone.
01;12;36;27 - 01;13;03;25
Speaker 3
I would go back with I heard the argument with the baby and when and Maya and lyrics when they were talking about we would go back to the actual mousetrap because like the word that holds down the trap, you can't actually replace out the handwork and think it's going to work. But Parts have to fit. Exactly. Yeah. So that's what boils down to irreducible complexity.
01;13;03;28 - 01;13;09;12
Speaker 3
You Get parts that look like a bit of that, but they don't fit. It's not going to work.
01;13;09;14 - 01;13;38;16
Speaker 1
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You have that, that aspect of it. And then you have the whole like the assembly instructions. Where do they come from? You know, I think those are two really strong arguments against co-option that. Science really doesn't have an explanation for it because like you, like, like I said, the idea of co-option I'm pretty sure was a result of Behe is book on Darwin's black box.
01;13;38;16 - 01;14;06;03
Speaker 1
And this idea of irreducible complexity and evolution is like, Well, that's a pretty good argument. We should probably come up with a counter argument for that. And they came up with irreducible or co-option and it's, it's a plausible argument. It's just not demonstrated in scientifically. Like, I think, you know, I think they're working on it and there might be studies out there that show like some some forms of co-option kind of in play.
01;14;06;03 - 01;14;40;25
Speaker 1
I think I've seen some of that, but it's very or is not very solid. I say, you know, there might be aspects of it that are true, like evolution, but like, does it explain all of the nuances of it? Like the bacterial flagellum that we talked about and how it comes together seems unlikely that like those parts were in useful because like, that's the thing with evolution is it's a bunch of small steps towards a change.
01;14;40;27 - 01;15;11;04
Speaker 1
But every step has to be functional and beneficial for it to pass on to the next stage. And you need many, many, many many, many changes to do anything meaningful. And they all have to be in the beneficial range. It's like kind of like flipping a quarter or maybe it's like rolling a 100 faced dice a million times and needing the same number to come up.
01;15;11;07 - 01;15;36;22
Speaker 1
Like it's just not it doesn't make sense because every single time you roll the dice and you need it to be that number and if not, it's detrimental and you dropping what? You're not going to have very many organisms surviving. If that was the case. And that's just one change in like the number of changes needed are astronomical.
01;15;36;29 - 01;16;05;21
Speaker 1
Like so many, so many. And like we and like we mentioned earlier, we don't even really understand like we understand the, the sum of the parts on the the DNA protein protein machines, molecular machines that that we understand kind of how that works. Not super well, but kind of but then like how does that translate to macro organisms.
01;16;05;23 - 01;16;30;29
Speaker 1
We have no idea. Like, like it just doesn't I what I think is interesting is the whole body plan idea. Like where does that come from? Like, how does that work? Which like science doesn't know, like because the DNA seems to code for proteins, not body plans. You know, it's just building proteins. How does it know to put my liver where it needs to be?
01;16;31;01 - 01;17;07;24
Speaker 1
How does it know that all my arteries need to hook up just right? There is no explanation for that. And like, that's even outside of any of this. And that's just a whole nother problem that we are just clueless on. Yeah, it's pretty, pretty fascinating. As we close up, any other thoughts or questions come to mind? All right.
01;17;07;26 - 01;17;35;16
Speaker 1
Well, let me close this up on prayer and we'll call it a morning. But I just want to thank you for this discussion. Thank you for your amazing creation and the engineering that went into it. We still, you know, as we learn more and discover more and we see the just amazing engineering that goes into something as simple as a bacteria's tail and it's all inspiring.
01;17;35;19 - 01;17;59;28
Speaker 1
We think we are so smart, you know, that we have built all these amazing things, which is true. But when we compare them to life, which is your they pale in comparison to other. And we just thank you for those signs of your fingerprints in nature. And we stand in honor of you and your glory. And thank you for all that you've done.
01;18;00;03 - 01;18;10;23
Speaker 1
Just pray that you would bless the rest of the day and this weekend. And thank you in new name, in the name of.