НИКИТИН vs САВВАТЕЕВ: Как возникла жизнь?

Hello everyone, dear friends. On the air Cognitive supervision. Today we have again no Not exactly a debate, but a discussion. More It's not clear which is more interesting. To us Alexey is joining today Vladimirovich Savateev and Mikhail Alexandrovich Nikitin. And on Continental The heated debate continues over supervision about where life on Earth came from. The question is, well, to put it mildly, non-trivial. and I hope interesting many of our viewers today. I I welcome not only spectators cognitive supervision, but also those who retransmit us. I know some like that There are a lot of channels. I hope it's there too everyone is glued to their screens and ready to, uh, great interest and immersion, uh, to perceive our discussion today. I ask everyone to write in the comments to broadcasts, can you see and hear well? so that once we are convinced of this, we can, eh, let's get down to the discussion itself. And before I reintroduce I will remind our guests very briefly prehistory. Uh, well, I could say, in in the beginning was the word, but still not so initially, yes. Background next. Uh, visiting my channel Alexey was there relatively recently Vladimirovich Zavadeteev, who previously discussed with representatives Russian no-science pop, probably so you could say, with Alexander Panchny. There was quite an interesting debate. AND Alexey Vladimirovich expressed a number of claims, a number of uh disagreements with the fact that speak about the origin of life some representatives of the scientific popular community. And probably, the most severe criticism was directed at To Mikhail Nikitin. And Mikhail Nikitin agreed to respond publicly, to express your point of view, maybe more more capacious, more concentrated and reply directly to Alexey To Vladimirovich on his claims. That's why We agreed as follows. Alexey Vladimirovich now will reproduce his criticism again, perhaps maybe, more briefly, but nevertheless will remind the audience what it consists of, and Mikhail Alexandrovich in turn will start answering, otherwise the discussion will go in free format. And my task will be in order to somehow minimally getting involved in order, if at all it is necessary. I think that the respected speakers can and we can handle this ourselves, so my role is here is a small one. Well then, I'll ask. connect the director of our broadcast Alexey Vladimirovich and Mikhail To Alexandrovich. Thank you, gentlemen, for that agreed to take part in today discussions. And according to our agreement I give the floor to Alexey Vladimirovich Sovateev. Please reproduce your criticism. Yes, friends, hello. So, in fact in fact, it all started, of course, quite a long time ago, but if I were now If I'm going to tell you everything, then Vadim is the one the word will be taken away for verbosity. That's why I I'll say briefly that there is one on the channel chemist James Tour was very interesting survey that some significant percentage like there were twenty or something like that uh, respondents believed that the frog was already they've already pulled it out of the laboratory, which happened there by itself. Well, and there are also many people there, like more than half, I I don't remember the exact numbers, but the point is that were absolutely convinced that origin, well, that's how life is from the stones, it is so undoubted a fact that has long been known to all scientists proven. I became curious as to how So? After all, if you look into the scientific literature, it's completely different you see. You see, huge problems, which are discussed there in the modus from It's impossible and we'll never be able to reach Yes. no, still, probably someday it will work, but in any case it won't work The frog is already ready. And the question is, how? it turned out that the educational the public, well, how would she manage it here's to convince the others that In fact, everything is fine there. Well, here I am I came across a video with Mikhail Alexandrovich, and this is what he says: "I'm turning on the air." Hey, Alexey Vladimirovich, we, to Unfortunately, we don't hear uh, what, what, what you connected, so maybe will have to be quoted orally. Fine. It doesn't work that way. Yes. Why now? Here I turned it on, mine the voice is heard, and Michael's voice is heard the voice is heard, unfortunately, unfortunately not. Yes, we could set this up in advance, but since this is not there was talk, if you can, maybe, Somehow a short video that I made sent yesterday, the video I sent yesterday, and that means which was on kana Vitaly, who is everything to us now sets it up smoothly, and I sent it a specific minute, and Mikhail Alexandrovich, of course, well, maybe there then listen to yourself again. Here. And it says that in Kunin's book, uh, in Kunin's article, in Kunin's book there, that means, accordingly, we have it turns out that immediately ribosome and the probability is that somewhere in the in the universe this could very well be the case- Mikhail Alexandrovich says. And this, well, is radically different from what Konin actually established. And in fact, just when he I counted the world of RNA, and he got 10 there. minus and what else? Well, let's just say there This can be discussed, although in my opinion it's also not possible, but one way or another it is comparable to the number of atoms in Universe. Which means that what he counted for the ribosome, but if I'm all like this I'm still a fool in biology I understand, well, ribosomes are very a serious big machine like this already proteins. Well, that is to say, it’s already like that serious level. And she has it there just right it worked out, Kunin got 10 minutes, which is naturally incompatible not from any scientific theory, that is. AND that's why he, Kunin himself, had to to turn to, how to say it if someone turns to intelligent design, then someone turns to an infinite number of no one observable universes with anthropic principle. Well, that is, they kind of went into completely unscientific philosophical plane. It was Evgeny Konin who left. That There is no other way out, he didn't find it. He writes that there is no RNA from the world a transition to protein is visible, so let's count the protein. AND This is what I got. And here is Mikhail Alexandrovich, in my opinion, is completely totally distorted it, perhaps completely, well, by accident, by mistake, but Let him answer himself. In this case, I ask Mikhail to speak. Nikitin. Ah, great. So, I will defend Kunin. I won't. He is perfectly capable of protecting myself. Uh, first of all, uh, Alexey I correctly noted that I, unfortunately, I got it wrong when I quoted Kunin, that really there the volume of the visible universe is not enough for realization of the probability that Kunin calculated. But this is not more important, what is more important is The fact that I don't agree with Kunin. Right whether I quoted him incorrectly. I'm with I don't agree with him. Means, why did Kunin think such a high such a low probability? Why did he think that to begin with Darwinian evolution requires a ribosome, which is quite complex system? Well, unfortunately, there are no expanded ones. I didn't see any explanation for this from him, but still more mainstream among biologists interested in this issue, is the RNA world scenario as the beginning life that existed before the ribosome simpler self-replicating RNA-based systems. The world of RNA, and the ribosome is already from the next stage, this is with the transition to the RNA protein world. The question of the transition to the RNA protein world is really poorly studied because It's more difficult to conduct experiments here than with modeling of simpler systems. So, that's why I'll try to tell you, Why I think the RNA world is good an option that is quite probable for implementation. So, It is known that Darwinian evolution by mutation of natural selection can create simple complex systems from simpler ones. Well, and this works not only in biology, it works in such applied things, such as evolutionary programming. For example, there is this one a method for creating software code, using Darwinian evolution. And in In some applications it is used. Here, for the Darwinian to begin evolution, you need to complete four conditions: reproduction, heredity, mutations, selection. Reproduction, that is some elements of the system must create your own copies. Mutations means that copies should not be absolutely perfectly accurate. It follows that these errors copies must be transmitted to future generations. and selection, that these copying errors should be different influence the probability differently multiply further. It's like completely base. I understand that Alexey wants more specific from me answers. Why do I think this? relatively likely without involving the multiverse? Yes, Alexey. Ah, well actually the first thing I wanted was, I have already received, namely I received an answer, that you were mistaken. quoting kuminatsi, yes, but you have to understand that the public, who listens to this video, very numerous, she, well, she reacts to this mistake, Yes? That is to say, now it’s good that it will be this has been said, this has already been said in live broadcast to understand that The leading scientist in this field has the view that he voiced in his book, and in numerous subsequent interview. Well, no, not in the future. That which do you think that the RNA world could perfectly well go to the world of squirrels, I know this from your personal book that I was looking through. Well maybe I haven't understood everything yet, of course, in it, but nevertheless there I have some comments. There are especially comments from chemists. Chemists checkmate this. Moreover, it's swearing. absolute for a number of reasons, the problem of herality, according to thermodynamic and various moments there. Well, the potential of gypsum, they say, is in the world of RNA, all this will instantly die and nothing will happen. But it's clear, we can discuss further, that is, you Can you explain your point clearly? of view, but I think it's not very It's interesting because you presented it I'm sure I've heard about this topic many times. AND here the question can be answered I can simply answer about probabilities tell. Why I don't agree with you here probability estimates? Well, by the way, to the question of protein evolution that you It seems they wanted to touch on that too. This And this is what we're going to do now, this is what we're going to do now. next moment. I generally wanted if, Well, if it goes the way I want, then I will, I was sent your presentation, there were links to Jack Szostak and other chemists working with RNA. Well, So here is Shostok's objection that rebozyme cleases, that is, those that destroy RNA, appear with much greater probability. It is just being removed by that direction that he develops himself six compartments. That is when each RNA molecule sits in its own a bottle of soap, very, very simple analogue of a cell. In this case, if she destroys RNA, then it will destroy just myself and no one else. If different RNAs are located in different compartments and do not mix with each other very effectively in another, then this is the problem of solving it, in In general, it's clear. Well, you can see it, but when they see it, well, then Yes, it is visible from your point of view, but he doesn't exist. That is, there are no decisions yet there is none, otherwise Jack Shostok would have been here a long time ago I would have announced it already. So here it is all the same we need to separate the following things, like, well, That's not what a non-professional should receive information about what is actually is already 100 times proven scientifically and the experiment has been done many times. And that, what is, well, there, from the point of view some or other biologists may or may not impossible until proven it's still a belief that it is Maybe. This is not scientific, Yes. The ones you brought results, polls about the fact that 20% there, respondents believed that already the frog was synthesized, this is, unfortunately, the result of how science works journalism. not even popularization science, namely scientific journalism when there is a university there issues a press release about new works their scientists, then there are journalists The regular media is dragging this stuff out. Here for several cycles of retelling all sorts of things the reservations that scientists love so much, journalists throw away the results are presented in a much more fantastical manner as they really are. I just I refer you to the comic book about the famous scientist raped a journalist who was exactly sweat that is, it is about communication Understood. We have it too. We have There was a similar situation recently. Vanya Remizov, my friend, got some there solution of some class of differential equations, well there through infinite iterations, and his published as a refutation of the theory Lua. God forbid, I just don’t know, I’m for I grabbed my head, I gave him a magazine. That's understandable. But it seems to me that in this case the scientific community must act quickly and sharply to perform. That's what we do in that case. done. We went on air together and They said, "Forget about any of them. refutations and sensations." Good Job. Well, quite normal, I guess. average level there, well, maybe even very oh, it's not bad, but it's not a breakthrough, no no no coup. That is, it seems to me, that here is yours, even your personal one some It seems to me that it is your personal duty to - it is to extinguish these things. That is to say, Friends, no, for now the transition to to the protein world and to the cell in general completely unscientific. Nothing here there is no justification. Work is underway in many directions, but there is a huge number of problems. That's where the chemists got me dumped. I already did it all the time I looked at my notes and that's all they said to stick it here all the time staring, staring here. Well, how would I I'll try not to stare now, yes, yes, I will I'll try not to stare, but the fact is that and from there I can read uh I don't think so Everyone will be interested in this, I can later just send comments from chemists regarding the transition from the RNA world. That is the point is that life is here we call the growth of crystals there life, Well, you can't. This is, well, absolutely it's pointless. Here. Or, I don’t know, polyethylene ones. some of these giants, which uh also grow and grow. Well, they are growing. Well then There is still some concept of life here I need to I need to get going, well That's how my chemist friend says it. This means that a living organism has boundaries and maintains high levels for a long time chemical potential and at the same time It participates, in general, in metabolism. That is, these boundaries are not the boundaries of the flask in which it all is is being done. Here. And in this regard, well, Chemists really checkmate this. That Yes, Mikhail Alexandrovich, do you believe in what it will be, in the end received, but chemists do not believe it. But it is important not this. So, the cell membrane is considered border in the case of chemists. Well, It's an interesting question, can I ask? Let's ask. I'll definitely ask. That is as cellular organisms of another border No. Well, in general, I would say that Today Yes. Well, no, I mean, cellular The membrane is what the cell is. Yes. If in a cell will arise by itself in the laboratory, It will probably be very serious blow. But attention, here is the key point by itself, because these the last ones, that's what I read in Markov, for example, I do not agree that Only journalists are to blame. Here is Markov guilty. Alexander Vladimirovich Markov wrote on his blog ponygire to this Q45. I showed it to the chemists. They say: "Damn, first of all, there "Heralnost". So that's all was being selected. There at the right moments some reactions stopped, while others stopped the moments began to change, which means, The materials were ready and arrived there. Secondly, it’s still about the RNA world, which will not go anywhere. And in general this, Well, nothing special really. Interesting, very interesting experience, Of course, in scientific terms it will be found there my. But why does Markov do it? The journalist made this statement, that we got a portal in the explanation abiogenesis? No, of course we didn't receive it. AND how can I say, They created a robot that writes. music, what is the key word here? Created. That is, a living person created, The experimenter created. That is, if we I am with you now, Mikhail Alexandrovich, if you and I now agree that should have existed at the dawn of life experimenter in this big laboratories, then that's it, hurray, everything's been removed. with the experimenter in the story about this They tried to model Q4 there right away there are many stages, so there the experimenters added substances to the right moments. But if we take e typical experiments on the creation of rebozymes, then the Slex method is used there, a technique, in general, of artificial selection, which depicts Darwinian evolution. And the experimenter did not know in advance knows what kind of ribozyme should be there what shape will it be, with what sequence. And that is in no way reasonable. design. Further on, of course, it’s very interesting discussion between these chemical engineers and geologists on the topic of what the order of adding reagents is possible in natural conditions, and which are not. Which reagents are generally possible in natural conditions, and which ones are not. This is a separate big very interesting one an area in which, again, there is some chemistry and geology the problem is in communication with each other. Well and, for example, the work of this team Cambridge Sutherland, which showed great results in synthesis nucleotides, they are just what geologists have raise some questions about that, What kind of chemistry is supposed to be there and was there any? Is such chemistry even possible? Well, and under by the action of criticism of geologists they still moved in the right direction. For example, tried to figure out what would happen if add hydrocyanic acid at the same time and formaltegit, because before that the chemists there happily said that there was hydrocyanic acid produces nitrogenous bases, from formaldehyde reactions Butler produces ribose. Next we need to figure out how to connect them. Here you go it turned out that connecting them is very, very difficult. And the Sutherlandites came up with it using models of atmospheric chemistry, which have been around since the seventies with Carlos Agan go, that photolesmetana V nitrogen atmosphere with the presence of CO2 and water vapor should also produce hydrocyanic acid acid and formaldehyde at the same time, which will both be extracted from atmosphere with raindrops and then they will react with each other friend. And Sutherland's team showed that there another chemical reaction does not occur Butlerov's reaction, which is different method, but also effectively leads to synthesis of the necessary sugars. That is, there is still work to do here, of course, untouched land. And communication problems There is interdisciplinary here. There are chemists who are very famous and they don't listen to criticism from geologists, For example. Yes. But anyway, uh, let's put it this way, the outer man who enters into it, reveals very very furious dispute. For example, you probably know about what is in your book origin a whole treatise has been written about life, and, in which carefully after Ah, well that's cool. I'm seven links. So, uh, a No one has brought me this link yet. I understand. So, I mean, I'll bring it. Ah, here it is. Oh, Nikitin's books origin of life. Here, ah, the big-big one of the six six-part a treatise which I, unfortunately, really due to, well, there, my profound ignorance of biology and chemistry, Well, there, although at school I had I got excellent grades in chemistry, but since then a lot of time has passed, and only approximately you can understand that, and, what is now done, where did everyone go now? Where? Where did the window go? Alexey Vladimirovich, maybe for now You're just sending this link, I I'll intrude a little into your discussion. Then I just as a representative of the audience in some measure, yes, ask I'd like to ask you a little bit about both sides. make your disagreement clear, because what is not yet very clear, actually, about what the discussion is about. That is me, Let me tell you briefly how I do this visible from the side. Here is Alexey Vladimirovich said that it was so young There is a quotation error. Yes, Mikhail. said: "Yes, there is a mistake, but it doesn't change as if my fundamental views." And We seem to have resolved this issue. And then question: "It is unlikely that Mikhail Alexandrovich abandons his ideas about biogenesis, yes, and it's unlikely Alexey Vladimirovich refuses his ideas that biogenesis not the state of a person who, as it were, point of yours. Okay, I'll tell you now, I'll tell you now. Okay, I'll tell you now. So, the feeling is the following, what is done, Roughly speaking, there are a lot of letters, but in the alphabet they don't add up. The letters themselves are nothing they don't indicate it yet. When trying to designate very quickly all this dies. This is my feeling. It's clear that Michal Alexandrovich may be different. But what? it's important, and perhaps we can still agree with Mikhail Alexandrovich, what, ah, in the explanation of abiogenesis there is nothing there, as they say, nothing Not right now. Well, that is to say, it is possible. put that, roughly speaking, in 200 more nothing will be explained. And there the problem of herality, I think that Mikhail Alexandrovich recognizes her completely, yes, because chemists They say it's a 100% problem, which cannot be bypassed at all, because nature is completely symmetrical problem, but the solutions are there are also visible. Well, they are visible in the sense that concentration is slightly impaired a little bit in one direction, and then you need to, so that they are all of the same type. And chemists they say that there is nothing there it's visible, well, sort of, that is what is meant is that scientists, Then one biologist just clearly told me this said: "We biologists believe in biogenesis. That's it, leave us alone, we believe." Yes, Of course, nothing is explained, we are in it we believe. You can believe in anyone, but We believe in abiogenesis. That is, like me I understand, among other things, in biology Mikhail Alexandrovich personally has one like, well, knightly, orderly the message is that everything that is not clear here, we We'll close it eventually anyway. A otherwise what? And then the black wall, yes, rises. Otherwise what? What else should we do if if the chemists there give us a verdict of obscenity, if combinatorics gives us a verdict Mat, what are we going to do? Yes, that is. the next question usually goes attack on me always. Here is a biologist says: "What do you want?" Yes, okay, ok, I admitted it, I admitted it, nothing here No. It's a matter of faith. Just now you you mean to say that in science it is necessary then admit it if everything you say about albiogenesis is true, and the cell will not appear Could I have done it myself without this very architect? What do you want to say? Yes. Biologist, you do you mean? But I would have given him a kick, so that he doesn't speak for all biologists right away, because my position is not such. I don't have any holy faith. biogenesis. I have a presumption, more or less standard for science presumption that what is happening should be explained processes first by reasons from the same fields of science, in general, without involving something more distant, not yet it worked out, until it clearly didn't work out explanation with similar reasons. Well, it is clear that this is a presumption, that is, this I'm not 100% sure that everything is it should be exactly like this. Yes. Well, the second consideration is from philosophy of science, from research Locatos programs, which Yes. The hypothesis of biogenesis leads to a clear research program, what experiments can be done for her checks and clarifications and clarifications specific mechanisms. And here's what it is the research program follows, let's say, from Intel Design? Which ones are possible? interesting experiments to conduct for confirmation of the refutation of this hypothesis and what can this give us? This is me, Unfortunately, I don't understand. Well, actually, from a research program related to with biogenesis, many interesting things came out experiments and it turned out, in fact, a lot of practical applications, starting from, Well, if we take it in a broad sense, starting with food preservation technology in tin cans. from Nicolas Operazzara from the plane. In fact, some, apparently, very a strange take on intelligent design, that this is a look, that you need to put your hands and stop doing science. But not alone from those. OK. I tried to find supporters Intelligent design proposals experiments, proposals research programs. Maybe I am I didn't search well. If you know, please tell me, I'll be curious. No, well, okay. At least I can suggest one. Well, I can say that, There is definitely one scientific hypothesis, which in case, well, sort of assumptions that the cell appears according to some plan and in general, that, Well, there is downward causality, I would that's what I called it, yes, and without her I wouldn't get by. And I can offer, and then I I'll ask one question. Fine, Let's. Ah, before moving on to proteins. So, uh, the next idea is that if we do this or otherwise were able to verify that all this will never work out and Billions were wasted completely senselessly dollars for experiments in this Origin of Life Research, and just like that if only we could do all this if we admit it together, then it is clear that, for example, on Mars or any other planet e- there with suitable conditions, like They say it's exo, yes, they call it a planet. This could very well be life too, because that we are no longer obliged to count probabilities in this case, right? That is the scientific hypothesis is that then and not we need to calculate probabilities because smart design, well, when you came in, you we entered the room, there were coins scattered around, Yes, coins are lying everywhere, everything is shaking, the coins are all just lying around, in another room with levers and springs everything is connected. I use this analogy all the time. I tell everyone because the chemists told me so fed. And all the coins are inside equally, and the room is reliably protected from external earthquake. Well, so what? It's clear that I just visited this place the person who put them and all these I made springs. That is, like this you see the obvious truth in the face. And if you just admit it, that we are in this we will never figure out how it was done. But since we We understand that there was an architect, so why? even then I wouldn't have imagined that on these There may be life on planets. No longer necessary say that we are alone there Universe, because then the hypothesis the probability calculation no longer works. And here it is Can I have more please? send all this money to search non-winter civilizations, there in communication with them. But in any case, these are some these are already quite scientific questions, scientific program. I think so, in my opinion, for the search for extraterrestrial civilizations don't need a hypothesis at all Intelligent design. People and without her are searching for extraterrestrial life civilizations. No, well, the hypothesis is that they have life too, it, well, it has great scientific power, of course, if we we assume that it was collected, eh, so, an architect. Well, it's there. At least this is the first possibility, that life arose in our galaxy once on Earth, but on Mars moved by lithopanthermy, so it might still be there on Mars make sense with this option. Again, still from the idea that at the dawn of life we need to calculate the probabilities, after all Something clearly follows. Well, okay, if not agree, then disagree. But it's not we need to calculate probabilities, that's of course encouraging for the search for life on exoplanets, but about the mechanism by which, let's say this architect worked, we Do we have any chance of finding out anything? Some in this direction research program? We could learn something from I would like to see this architect. Well, that's interesting, that's interesting. question. So, the answers may be here very different. And I, like this, like you you suggest not to any biologist I speak for all biologists, I do too. I suggest that no one should speak out immediately for intelligent design theory, especially since It's not clear what it means. She means only what we see and We state. Well, roughly speaking, here it is, let's say this way, if I, uh, the more I'm in The more I delve into this, the more I understand that we are talking about something completely obvious there the impossibility that this somehow happened on ancient Earth or somewhere in Universe. But the point is to answer for everyone, what programs does everyone have? there will be, I can't, but I can take this homework, offer certain studies programs, yes, in the case of theory intelligent design. Ready to take home exercise. A, listen, this would be very interesting and cool, yeah, what I took. Ah, I accept in return next. I ask a question in response next question. And the question is this, Mikhail Alexandrovich, what should happen, so that you reject the theory of abiogenesis? So, have I rejected the theory of biogenesis? Is it possible to imagine some Yes. Look, here we actually have deal with excellent potential for logical errors. It's called proof non-existence by incomplete induction. That is, incomplete induction is when we we do it about some representatives of the group judgment about the whole group, about the whole categories. Yes, I am not misrepresenting it. I I still want to get an answer to this personal question. Then you can ask me I'm just starting to answer some this question. You just need a little bit here philosophy. It won't work without her. Yes. Yes. Yes. Means, complete induction is impossible if we have some very big and even more so uncountable set. Therefore, with partial induction always occurs in science, with incomplete induction scientists have to deal with it, they have to to use it. And to prove the existence of something. We we can find one swan in the world, point a finger at it and make something out of it the conclusion that swans exist. But to conclude that there are no swans in does not exist in the world, to obtain data for such a conclusion will be much more complicated. Under no circumstances such a conclusion will not be absolutely 100% reliable. Well, even if we will cover the entire earth with cameras in mode online and we know for sure that swans are not can fly in the stratosphere and bury yourself in the ground, well then, in general, It will be possible to use any one, well that's enough to convincingly prove that there are swans on planet Earth does not exist. But the question remains: maybe they some aliens transported somewhere to another galaxy? And how are we? we will prove that in another galaxy or does disaster exist? In general, proof of non-existence - it's a very complicated thing. And, uh, you're talking about proof. non-existence of working scenarios from biogenesis. No, I'm just asking under what conditions under what conditions would you reject this theory? I'm just getting to this point. That's what I mean I'm suitable, yes. There are such conditions. Uh, if in 100 years, let's say, the intensive work of scientists in this It won't be possible to create a region stably replicating the system of the level of complexity of the RNA world, then there is precellular, if it doesn't work out, then I'll do this I admit that, apparently, yes, it doesn't work Ibiogenesis. I understand. So, on this matter, two comment. First first, of course, do you mean that scientists create conditions, and they close the lab and they leave. Well, so that it would be exactly like this, so that it doesn't happen that scientists have created than proven. What was proven? What is the mind? could create what they created here. Well, that is to say, it won't be here. proof, if scientists even They will make the glue cage themselves. This just here the key word will be the same creation, right? Creation of non-zymes by the method Slex is not what we collected there. a machine made of screws and parts. This is us created the conditions for evolution, which then he will do something that we don’t we can predict and calculate practically. Fine. And tell me, please, Slex is not a pre-development according to a known plan, this is not a development technical specifications and drawings, do you understand, do you understand? Works of evolution, There are degrees of intervention. Doesn't matter Scherality for now, as we know. By the way, about the xeral nature. 175 years the invention of stereochemistry has passed, but it Are you still not satisfied? Yes, like 100 years experiments. That is 175 years experiments on the problem of herality do not removed. She was needed at all stages, not only for an explanation of biogenesis. She Chemists needed it like air. But this one the problem has not been solved. This is what chemists say clearly here. I'm afraid we hardly Let's argue. Yes So and or these are not those, 100 years. A What kind of statement of the problem is this? heralities in chemistry? Well, it's quite often necessary there. and I know about herality in abiogenesis, and in chemistry I don’t know what the problem is. Well if you're talking about cheral-specific syntheses and pro separation of cheral isomers, about this, Well, apparently yes, because chemists separation of cheral isomers is standard method. This is chromatography on column with a cheral sorbent. More In addition, we have readily available cheap natural cellulose sorbent It's called. modify it some kind of phosphates they say where did this come from? They say that no, the problem is not solved. because whenever it is resolved Somebody is already involved, so to speak asymmetrical, this is like one of these two hands are always attracted to some it's asymmetrical and it's unclear where it came from could have been in the beginning and how it was in the beginning was attracted at this stage of abiogenesis, right? Ah, that is You are talking about abiogenesis, not about chemistry. I can talk about abiogenesis. more definitely. Firstly, we have data on heralities of meteoritic organics, where There is cheral in many meteorites imbalance between left and right isomers amino acids. Now I will formulate it in such a way that it became clear, and I didn't sinned against some big one science. So, and that one the method to be invented, if abiogenesis is done in 100 years, Well, in the laboratory, in these conditions when you leave and you go out, but this method would be very needed by chemists with many of them there production, including quite for everyday life. Well, there, as they say. And this is 175 pharmaceuticals. There are hellish directions Syntheses are needed. Well It's strange, how come it doesn't work? do. I just subscribed to the magazine Science and there with sufficient regularity of articles from different groups chemists about what we did a specific synthesis of such and such, We did it, we did well. Well yes, but this is always used It's used at the start, yes, this one We'll separate the flies from the cutlets. Let's Let's define it, we're talking about chemical industry or about biogenesis. Fine, Let's do it this way. The chemical industry has this problem, Of course, it can be solved. About abiogenesis there's a different story there. AND it starts with meteorites, in which there is a slight kheral distortion, the reasons for which are not exactly known, but there are several relatively plausible hypotheses associated there or helical polarization ultraviolet radiation in areas star formation, or with secondary electrons after beta decay, or with this very fundamental asymmetry. uh weak nuclear interaction and its contribution to the rest energy of molecules, or with mechanisms of enhancing cheral asymmetries during recrystallization. By the way, there is an important argument for this, among chondrite meteorites more strong kheral asymmetry is present in those meteorites where the degree was greater water alteration, where the contents the meteorite is larger and longer interacted with liquid water and there were more opportunities for recrystallization of all organic matter. Here. Yes, I understand. Normal asymmetry, which is simply stupidly older than life. There are no organisms in these meteorites. was. This is a kheral asymmetry that older than life and independent of life. Well, I understand correctly, which could help biogenesis. At the initial stage they all must be like this, all of them the same government. Necessarily not necessarily. For there are conditions for the polymerization of nucleotides, when from a racemic mixture are obtained in mostly clean chains. For This requires mineral clay substrates best. Okay, I actually heard it. answer. The answer is: if in 100 years, then there is an answer that we will have to wait 100 years. And during our lifetime, accordingly, the answer is that there is a huge number of hypotheses that are so or otherwise support your belief that that abiogenesis will happen in the end demonstrated. But for today this there is nothing at all. And, accordingly, for today in the context of our life, it is your belief in Abiogenesis is unfalsifiable. Well, that is to say, how would it be? unfalsifiable scientific theory. Well, that's actually it Konstantin Severinov says the same thing. in that uh piece that you probably saw when they were getting ready. I sent it everything in advance. Konstantin Severinov on the theory of evolution Darwinian - he was talking about Darwinian evolution says that it Yes, Let's not confuse this, but it is always presented together. After all, in order for her to it has begun, abiogenest must, It's really stupid that this is served together. I clearly separate this in my lectures, abiogenesis is an event that was once and quite a long time ago. Darwinian evolution is an ongoing process billions of years. continues now on in our eyes. E cases of parallel evolutionary events that can be compared. That's why we talk about Darwinian evolution we understand much more than about biogenesis. These are different things. Fine. So, here is Darwin's evolution by Konstantin Severinov declared itself unfalsifiable fundamentally science and theory. A, and in in this he, well, there is no Konstantin here, that's why I can't interrogate him. Ah, but I want to draw an analogy here and say that for you it is still abiogenesis - this is an unfalsifiable theory. Well, because we won't live for 100 years, right? Look, with falsificationism in sciences working with the past in general it's very difficult because that one who is there Was it Popper who came up with this? Yes, he did. generally focused on physics, which events occur on a human scale time, experiments in the laboratory are put and so on. And those sciences, which deal with long processes, taking thousands and millions of years, there not always, rather there is no possibility set up an experiment that these events will be reproduced in time human life. This problem exists in cosmology, this problem exists in archeology, this problem exists in evolutionary biology, this problem exists in geology. Falsificationism in sciences dealing with with slow processes, especially slow processes of the past, he works poorly. If you apply it like this the same as in ordinary physics, then there are sciences there there will be none left. Yes. That's why I have to somehow get by, therefore I have to, well, relate to, that is, to look for traces of the past in present and, well, look for an investigation. hypothetical past events. And when comparing two hypotheses about what was in in the past, it is necessary from both of these hypotheses draw conclusions that speak about present. It is desirable that for these two hypotheses are the consequences of the present were different. And then we look for these consequences, these traces in the present, traces past in the present. Here have to do something like that. And the fact that the earth's fauna changes over time, well, he was 50 years before Darwin biologists no longer particularly disputed it, because paleontologists have already dug up there are enough remains of different ages. Well and it was clear that we had Paleozoic deposits in which there there are trilobites, they have raccorpions, they have fish bones, amphibian bones, and there are no mammal bones in them one in general. And in later ones Mammals appear in the sediments. Where do they come from? How are they appear? From whom do they appear, in what way? This is a controversial issue. But the fact that evolution exists, that is, that some species appear, some species disappear, some species change, this is long before Darwin no one really cared there was no doubt, at least from biologists. But about the mechanisms of evolution, many, Of course, there were many different ones. You could hear about Lomakov's theory of evolution, exercises, non-exercise of organs. Well then here it is, in general, was rejected through falsification, because it implied a mechanism heredity, verifiable experimentally. From Ilomark's theory of evolution it followed that what if mice have been around for many years generations immediately cut off the tail, then they are in at some point they will start to be born with more with short tails. This experiment was conducted, showed that there is nothing something like this doesn't happen. There are no mice are born with shorter tails, If they have 100 generations of rest, their tails will grow. That is falsification specific theories about the mechanisms of evolution possible. And by the way, in this case Darwinian evolution, well, it's far from it the only one that is considered on present moment. If we we are not considering evolution at the level species, but at the sequence level DNA, at the level of letters in DNA, then the main the mechanism that works there is not Darnovsky, this is a neutral theory evolution of kimura, which mechanisms mutations and dreys, but there is no selection there, because for 3 billion letters, for example, human or mouse genome selection cannot act effectively on all 3 billion letters at once. He can act there are only a very small proportion of them. Therefore, at the letter level there is 90% Kimura's theory of evolution works and, well, The theory of evolution works at 10% of its strength Darwin. That is, it’s, well, not complete rejection, but limited applicability, it is quite observable data is output. Consider this falsifiability or not, but I don't I know. If we can limit the area application of theory, this is very interesting, we can't reject it completely, but we can limit its scope of application. This falsification or not? Well, actually it is we can find cases in which the theory Darwin's is obviously not true and not works. We found them. Scientific research. This is called normal scientific research. But I just don't care what's here uh, it's a little alarming, and this is a huge confusion in terminology, because ah well, by itself, then, Well, yeah, right now, to close biogenesis, but still, as I understand it, it doesn't exist none, well, except for a hundred-year wait, and the way you, uh, well, there, roughly saying you, uh, don't exist no potential scenario, except for the hundred-year-old barren ones searches, so that you take a different point of view, that abiogenesis is impossible and the cell is the result, well, as you can call it further it is either the creator, or architect, or perhaps if I I'll talk to those chemists with whom you communicate, maybe I will change mine point of view. Understood. Understood. Alexey Vladimirovich, By the way, you often refer to chemists. Maybe you just made it I would say if these are public figures, maybe you could just name the names, maybe they have work and our viewers could too get acquainted. Not public, but one of They agreed to give an interview. Aa so you can try it organize. Maybe so too. By the way, that would be It would be great to do this in a discussion format, maybe with Mikhail, if Mikhail I agree because I, like you you see, the interlocutor here is useless in these issues. Understand. Here. Mikhail I will supply Mikhail, and I will supply reviews on his books, on his book. Well, not the size of his book, but at least uh well There are definitely about 50 pages there. Here. AND, Of course, I'm not much of a biologist, I don't I can listen to it, but the general, like, well, in I mean, I can't understand what's there it is written, but the general background is that there, Roughly speaking, it’s not just a house that’s worth it. This cell is something there. super complex, it's more complex than anything else human system, yes, and that means biologists are happy when in the laboratory there were several cubes made from this house, which is unclear how to make up, it is not clear what materials from them there and so on. Well, that's the point what it represents. It is clear that It's very difficult to judge this from the outside, Yes, but probably to Mikhail Alexandrovich This might be interesting, maybe read at least diagonally. Here. Alexey Vladimirovich, may I ask? I would like to ask you one clarifying question so that just to better understand your position. Here you are criticize the position. Yes, yes, yes, no problem, of course. Well, I don't criticize time. So I don't I criticize Mikhail's questions questions, yes, to Mikhail Alexandrovich. I I just wanted to clarify that you are talking about that Yes, you're talking about the fact that uh you ask how to falsify this theory. Absolutely, it seems to me, fair question. But Here I would like to simply be a spectator understand which one is being offered alternative, because Michal Alexandrovich says that, well, we need to check, we are checking now, there are no results yet, yes, but if there was an alternative where it would be worthwhile simply put great efforts into scientists, Yes, that's exactly what I was asking about you Mihai, Yes, it's just not there yet, yes, then It's not clear what we're arguing about. Eat is there any option where we can go forces with greater meaning? No, I am all of this. I see, yes. Well, I think that, what is happening now, in my opinion, is that so much money was wasted there in these experiments in Origin of Life Resarch, where there is nothing anyway, that's just it these are the very ones expenses, right? So, if the theory intelligent design was not simply open religious persecution, I I can't call it anything else, because that, well, like when a person who asks questions, gets a member's prize The correspondent lied instead of answering your questions and okay, another person in another area, but that doesn't matter to anyone there won't be any consequences for this, but in the region itself there are people they are simply afraid to give their last names, when they doubt the theory there, well, let's say, in the materialistic theory revolution. I'll be careful because no one doubts that evolution was happening. There are no such people. Well then there is like Well, this is really what would I could have done something like that too receive the Academician Uralov award? Well, I don't know, it's just that I have such a film myself. Interesting question. Well, that's an interesting question. I think that if I think that if you talk to a chemist and in the end you will say that yes, you I was convinced there was nothing there If it sticks together, then you will get it. But the point is This is precisely what is scientific now community around the theory of evolution and abiogenesis, let's say, yes, it means, is simply subject to censorship. That is people who express a clear view, Well, except for Michael Behe, who somehow I stayed put because he was like that cool and cheerful all over and has nine children him, he held on, yes, but basically What country are you talking about, because from country to country it is, to put it mildly, very different scientific policies. Yes, yes. Well, I What do the US and Chinese science policies have in common? and Russia? Well, the US, China and Russia have the same policy of censorship of scientific research. Seriously? Censorship? No, I didn't say that. So, censorship. Let's take that is called the civilized world. In it, Of course, there is censorship, which, so it's intelligent design that It's called leading to a monastery. Well, If you argue with this, but I'm not ready then, um, how can I say, I won't insist. They just exist scientific journals, who are just supporters of Intelligent Designs are created and published, and no one There, they don't ban you or put you in jail. But none of this would be accepted into a serious magazine. accepted. Not accepted in Nature Science. You know, How many good, absolutely scientific articles are there? is not accepted into Nature Science? Fine. Have you heard the magazines preaching? and it's impossible to get there with normal science difficult? Yes, I understand. I myself am also like that I was moving around in this area. Now, excuse me, there is the Internet, there is the opportunity to publish a scientific article yours, if they don’t take it into the magazine, in open access to the preprint service. There are people who do this. Eat enough history when people who did good science, with your article you received there's a rejection in 10 or fifteen magazines contract. And they had to show a lot persistence to see if I'm right I understand what you mean, let's say it then So, I wouldn't be good to take it to the places contradictions. Well, that's the place. We have outlined the contradictions of biogenesis. Uh the next moment is a place of contradiction. Do I understand correctly that you disagree? with me, what is in the scientific world censorship, which, in general, pursues one way or another otherwise people who declare their understanding that abiogenesis is impossible. IN in general, evolution itself is also in in a materialistic sense is impossible. There we must either admit, As far as I know, such censorship can exist in the case of the United States within the framework individual universities, within the framework policies of a particular university. Because in the US it is, firstly, very strong related to religion. Secondly, in the USA religion plays a big role in society, much more than in Western Europe, much more than in Russia. Uh, well, it turns out that they are specifically tied to the issue of power and money. So, uh, in the US this kind of censorship can of course exist, but I don't feel the same way about other countries I agree. Well, sorry, in Russia for sure you can create your own scientific journal and publish whatever you want there. We won't talk about Russia. So that's it It's clear. Ah, I heard, thank you. Understood. Well, it's very interesting to listen to. comments. It's also interesting to see, Can I ask Mikhail? Alexandrovich, we are not far from this yet left. And what is your personal attitude towards this kind of view on the origin life? Uh, well, that is, you yourself think, that it needs to be scientifically censored there or would you be in favor of such were studies conducted? It was interesting I would like to know this. Well, it seems to me that this is Interesting. Listen, well, if there were work in areas of Intellig Engent design were made all these people did it, Like Alexey, I would only do this greeted. That is, if they were there were consistent in logic, neat in methods. But Fine, Unfortunately, not everyone is so careful. and consistent. Okay, okay. I would censor, Of course, I didn't. Censorship in science, in my opinion, is generally it's a very bad idea if we don't talk only about completely applied science. That there are, uh, well, roughly speaking, drawings there nuclear warhead, probably, after all Should we censor or use technology? creation of some dangerous viruses, It should probably be censored. And here it is fundamental science without such immediate practical applications, obviously dangerous, I wouldn't censor became. I heard it and agreed. Fine. Now I am I just want to, uh, before I move on to squirrels, ah, I want to give a link, well, like I won't give you a link right now, let alone a link, but the film is immediately found on the Internet, which is called Expelled colon, but Intelligence Alloud, It's a bit of a play on words. That is, uh, how is this intelligence, It is both intelligent design and cleverness. the ability to output there, well, of course, build logical reasoning and so on further. It will probably be found right away, right? By the way, it's high time to suggest to all our subscribers and viewers after broadcasts go to the Telegram channel Cognitive supervision, where will the links be? from both participants, who are respected gentlemen I'd like you to imagine. There will be a big one a list of what it recommends to read and Mikhail Alexey, I think it will be correct. And it will take place there too. vote. So your opinion too Dear viewers, it will be taken into account who is who from your point of view, anyway will win if your opinion is friendship for now which I think I'm always talking about opinion, I'm always talking about opinion. I will lose. This is perfectly understandable. This I don't care at all. Let's move on. Listen, well, the question, in my opinion, is this pretty stupid idea. That's the meaning of it. I don't see. Agree. Yes. Yes. Maybe if you wanted to ask me about religion, I think that Panchin and Sokolov's persecution of religion - It's a big stupidity that we don't need this to do what religion does not do for scientists interferes. I am quite aware that scientists religious views exist. AND, for example, among theoretical physicists they quite a few. I talk about this with some people. communicated. They told me that religiosity allows them to maintain hope. that there is order in the world, this order can be known, and this helps them, well, motivates them to do their scientific work, and does not interfere. But there is also a big bang, which it's just that in the beginning there was the word, light and so on further. It's just different here and not any different. And in science this is an inexplicable thing. That is With them it is much more obvious. We have this. here we need to prove there about biogenesis and argue. There's nothing to argue about there. There They all admit that it is inexplicable. OK then. Now the next thing is about proteins. Mikhail Alexandrovich, I have a second one. There is one point that I also want to clarify. So, scientists are against myths. Scientist against myths. Under consideration protein phosphorescent, Such a beautiful wooden fluting. Yes, Yes, yes. And you say what to answer denier of evolution. Well, that's also sort of it. I don't like this one a little myself wording, because it is necessary to answer not to the denier of evolution, but to the one who doubts her materialistic mechanisms. Because still, once, a denier of evolution, I don’t know, no I've never seen them, they don't exist. That's where I'm not I go to the creationists, they say: "Well, in I mean, it was lying, of course, the bones are lying." It is clear that there was evolution, but somehow the mechanism is clear, that's it Alexey, I have met living people young earth creationists who deny evolution. a rare beast, but They happen, they happen. Well, okay, but it's all the same, it's all it's the same as denying. Here comes the car, deny that she is going. It's clear that intraspecific variability. Here she is face. Here it is like a big one there is some confusion in terminology, which must be eliminated at the very beginning case. That is, it is clear that the immediate there's this evolutionary biology studies completely immediate evolutionary processes, 100 times there confirmed all around, and everyone sees them. Here. On the other hand, if we are talking about about evolution, in which new ones are born species or new genes, yes, then here Still, I, well, let's say I'm still in it on topic, but the more I get into it landscapes of fitness, the more I I'm amazed and everything becomes more wonderful. Miracle. I'm ready, in fact, even in a sense, to argue, well, so in joke that in 10-15 in years there will be the same gaping holes as in abiogenesis. That is, the accumulation of data about these landscapes will lead, on the contrary, to full understanding that without the original information about where it should change genome, it all doesn't work because of the same probabilities that are close to zero every step. But really, at this time At the moment, so little has been studied here. I got involved in this in a year, I got involved in this in a year. some. So little has been studied, that's really still the case, as say, uh, there isn't even this solid one understanding that there should be jumps, which are impossible. But nevertheless you are in It's absolutely clear in this video say that at the beginning you say: "All "of course, you can't try all the combinations," you say. And this is completely reasonable. There is, however, a verbal error with There is a verbal error, but I won't point it out pay attention. Each of ours listeners who at least know something understands, in fractions, he will see it right away. But the point is that if there are 240 amino acids, then This is 20,240. This is certainly a number. absolutely unimaginable. But then you You say that the numerator is large. A, and calculate this numerator. I took a pen and figured out how, well, a person who knows combinatorics, quickly calculated. Oh, and you say that here are theirs so many, there's like 10thirtieth, ah, well, roughly speaking, yes, there is some the figure is such that it is quite possible, This is a very low estimate. A three is a very strong estimate from below. I'll comment on this now. I am now I will comment on this. So, you continue to do so. you say that there are so many of them, that's why You can accidentally get into them. But the thing is that if we are talking about random hit, and the video is exactly under this it's written in sauce, that is, if it were like it would have been presented differently, which we don't know mechanisms, there is no randomness there, it is that's another matter. But the video is clearly designed for those, well, who, well, it is designed for this approach that nature couldn't go through it all, but look at this large numerator. Well, I assure you you, that this numerator after dividing by the denominator gives a fraction, well, identically equal to zero. Still there, if not 10 - 240, then mi 200. And even if you take it, it's me I just counted it with my own hand, and even if we take some moments there, that some proteins can be half changed, 10-80 appears there and by The Stirling formula doesn't seem to care zero. Zero and nowhere to go. And in As a result, what happens? Here I wasn't the only one who watched mathematics, my the teacher watched, there I showed many, another friend was watching, they just They are stunned. They see a video in which uh the educator says: "I can answer the denier of evolution the following, that in the numerator is a huge number." He says: "Have mercy, but you forgot the denominator to divide. After division the result is zero. So nature is still, of course, I couldn't get there." So what now? Are you answering an evolution denier? And in There is complete silence in the comments. None of this I didn't notice. This is about it, What kind of crowd listens to educational music? lectures on biology. This is actually true should alert us. And these people are there They call me such and such, fifth, tenth, they don't know how to imagine large numbers. Well, that's how it is My second question to you. Look, you're asking Great question. Really, great. Uh, that's cool that you asked that. So, space possible, potentially possible protein sequences truly monstrously huge. More Moreover, there are scientific works on large scales data there with proteins of all crazy thousands sequenced genomes that they show that there is no life there at all I even examined some noticeable parts of this space. And there is the head of the work simply the formulation of the protein universe continues to expand. That is, life continues to expand in in this space. The question is, is there is there a way to do it in a reasonable amount of time? find functional sequence of the protein, who will do something useful, which will be supported by selection? That is, on the one hand, we know that protein space the number of sequences is huge. And if so, uh, it's about 10 to the 120th power it works, right? No, even more. If more, if if this is this fleet on protein 240 there it is 240, that is, approximately 10320. Well, yes, then it’s a straight search, of course, that’s it it doesn't take, but it just means that we need to look for other ways, not including direct enumeration. And ask What we need here, of course, is not mathematicians, but chemists who work with proteins. There are many of them. So, that's what this is, knowing protein chemistry, can you say? as well as bioinformatics. And what about assessing the density of functions? sequences in this space proteins are difficult. For this you need very, very massive experiments with testing millions of billions, in ideally trillions of proteins. Of course, here it is this work with GFP, where it was tested, well, less than 100,000, that's it's already some step forward, but this, Of course, it's not enough. But the most important thing is, that new proteins, they usually do not arise from scratch. The main way of occurrence new proteins are gene duplications some already existing proteins. Second a copy of the new gene, uh, comes out from under actions of stabilizing selection, because one copy of this second function already performs and can acquire new function. That is, we start the search not from random place in space sequences, but from what is already there protein that does some other job function. Why does this cut down so much? search? Because the functional one the squirrel is most likely ordered alpha helix and beta helix structure. AND There are also chemical works on synthesis of random, well, semi-random protein-coding sequences with some restrictions, where, for example, What does it mean, most likely there is? Quicker There is everything. You said, most likely There is. This means that in science it is not yet proven or what? What is structure? The structure is streamlined. This is more like it in total, which means most likely for most functional proteins they have some kind of stable three-dimensional structure. Uh, search for this structure. It's called folding. But there is also this called intrinsically disordered proteins. Unstructured proteins, which perform their function without having stable ordered structure. Well, the simplest example of such disorderly proteins are mucin, a salivary protein that there in tiny fractions of a percent turns water into viscous mucous solution. Orderly three-dimensional structure, ordered ball. He doesn't need it at all for this form. Proteins without order there are fewer of them in the three-dimensional structure than ordered, but there are quite a lot of them, so that I cannot neglect them now. Well, there are more ordered proteins. And what's here? important? If you make libraries from proteins with a randomized sequence, but in such a way that they retain three-dimensionality structure, then in abbreviated in this way protein space sequences Functional proteins are very common often. That is, people did it there. library of 10,000 randomized proteins so that they had a compact, orderly structure, four alpha helices in a bundle, and showed that 30% of them have measurable enzymatic activity. They are there measured oxygenase, lipase and some other one. There are only three options enzymatic activities. That is, if the protein has a stable three-dimensional structure, then some function he will have a rather noticeable probability. And if we start with one protein that has an ordered there is a structure, then go from it to another protein, also with an ordered structure, it can be done much faster and easier than engage in a completely random search in space of protein sequences. This the basic mechanism for creating new proteins. He is not the only one, there are others. Fundamentally new proteins that arose truly by chance search, or something close to it, happens, but there are not very many of them. And they, like As a rule, they are all small. They are not 240 amino acids, there are less than 100, usually less 50 even. And they have quite a few functions, well, uh, mostly some regulatory or protective. So, that is, the formation of proteins is completely different zero happens, but it's not the most common event. Much more often, proteins are obtained from already existing proteins. Or change in the function and copy of one protein, or a combination of pieces of different proteins, This is called domain shuffling. That is, evolution has ways radically speed up space search protein sequences. So, then I have my next question. This is not a coincidence. And here we are, if you look closely in that video, well, there would have been some food for thought, let's say I I would, naturally, immediately run to my own people there to chemists who are generally skeptical about regarding the materialistic explanation The universe, in principle, because there they see downward causation very many places. But the most important thing is that here there wouldn't be a direct, well, contradiction with common sense. But any mathematician, who will watch this video, uh, which is what scientists are against myths, that I sent it to you, he sees what it is suggested to sort through, and then it is said that the numerator of a fraction big. Well, and that's all about the denominator. we forgot, but what kind of one do we see in As a result, the question was a little different, to which I responded with this video. There the question was what mutations can just break everything. I show them, I answer them that there is 10 ways to make it to the thirtieth power mutation without breaking anything. No, no, well, it was me specifically there. I can turn it on right now, like It is described that there is so much to sort through it was impossible. So let's Let's see how many are normal. And there they are a lot. Well, basically, I I don't know, not a single mathematician here will remain, as they say, indifferent. This looks like a complete mess, like that a person simply instead of To calculate the fraction, I calculated it numerator. But really, maybe, Some kind of explanation is required here the roller will satisfy all segments audience. And specifically there, yes, I'm not on mathematicians calculated, indeed. That is, in a good way, there, of course, It was worth adding that the evolutionary search, how it occurs in new nature protein sequences, this is not random enumeration. This is too much, which it starts with something else functional protein. Is there any understanding? If you understand Well, okay, yes, I, at least At least I heard the explanation, I In any case, I accepted it as it is. And I I understood what was meant, but I, so to say, I repeat once again, that this is This is completely from listening to the video simple, but it's confusing. That is It's very confusing when a person thinks about a fraction, wants it calculate, and it turns out like this. Means, so biologists claim that here Nobody is sorting through anything. Here something happens according to other laws, where part of the sequence turns out to be so much more likely, so much more more likely that all this huge the whole thing is completely empty fitness spaces It costs nothing. But this hasn't been proven yet. absolutely, yes, and the mechanisms are unclear. That is, these are all hypotheses too. What is the status? Well, these are working hypotheses that are being checked now. Here is the one quoted there I'm working on green fluorescent light. protein is just one of the works on clarification of large-scale characteristics protein fitness landscape. Understood. OK. I'm predicting this about the fact that in 10 years here too questions will arise that will not have no solution and they will start combinatorially dead end. Well, actually, As for me, you have answered completely to my questions. Thanks a lot. If you have If you come to me, go ahead. Yes No, well, we just can't talk. as much as you like. I'm still under the influence of notaleya, still I'll ask questions, but that's another time, yes, now I am ready to answer. But it seems to me that So, we just talked about it now, yes, but it is important to understand that Well, if you type something there about me, yes, it says Asovatiev flat earther, something like that he immediately comes out, oh yeah, and writes to the people: "Ah, yes, yes, yes, he was also given Vral, as well as the plane of the bag." It seems to me that this this is not very correct and not very nice, but with On the other hand, why should I protect? Let others protect me. So I'm ready to listen to your questions. Well, I don't have any ready for you, of course questions other than what I asked in at the beginning about the research program, following from the Intelligence hypothesis. Took it for development. Well, I don't promise. some deadlines, but I will. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Accordingly, I am talking about the RNA world here I have something to say. around the same time the same side as about green fluorescent protein, about dimensions space of sequences, then there are experiments with artificial selection of rebozymes, slexom, showed that rebozymes with low but measurable activity RNA copying exists and, uh, in on the scale of a laboratory experiment can be detected. What does this say about occurrence of such ribozymes in possible space sequences? Well, the length of such ribozymes conditionally nucleotides 200, then We have 4 two-hundredth degree options, that is, approximately 10-120, yes, I don’t I'm wrong in my calculations. Here more or less for one experiment, zarak, Well, we, scientists, are checking, well, I'll take it from there a stock of 1 g of RNA with random sequence. 1 g is 6 times 1023 the number of atomic mass units in a vagadra. How many RNA molecules is this? One nucleotide - this is approximately 300 atomic mass units. If there are two hundred nucleotide molecules there RNA, then this means 60,000 atoms units of mass, 6 to 10/4. That is 1 g of RNA 200 nucleotides long may contain 10 to the power of different options sequences. Avagadra number divides by 6 to 104. And there were experiments of this type well, obviously less than a million was carried out, less than 10 ushers. That is, uh, researched RNA sequence space less than 1025 degrees of variants. And on these 10-25 degree variants were found clearly more than one with measurable measurable reposime activity. Given that the full dimension of this space 10120, and we have researched 1025 and already something found. This means that potential chrybozymes with the activity of something copying there will be, well, Divide 10120 by 10/25 degrees. It turns out to be 1095 degrees, it seems. No, everything is clear here. There are chemists here against. Here the chemists say that this is has nothing to do with life. All these reactions will die immediately when the thermodynamic potential will fall and All. That is, we are not talking about numbers here. Now we are discussing the world of RNA, which, Well, chemical reactions always go towards reducing this potential. And if not this is it, this means that the system must be it is open and new people should be admitted to it reagents. All the time. No, they don't, no, no, there is there there is still there that, What is there, that means there are more obstacles? fundamental genus. And in this regard Now we are discussing this moment again transition from the world of RNA to the world of protein. That there is uh in the fact that there are some there connections like this Q-45 and so on further exist, chemists do not exist at all doubted. They just, when this one the experiment was over, my whole crowd, with whom we've been communicating for 2 years now, well, there with whom with whom how much is there with someone, with with someone for a year, with someone for 2 years, she just snorted and said: "Well, yeah, well, in In principle, it's a cool experiment, but doesn't change anything. Why does Markov write like this? such things, yes, and introduces everyone into delusion? For what? Why do this? AND the point is that there is no transition further neither to the ribosome, nor to the cell, more. And this is kind of Finnish impossible. He also says the same thing. James. You disappear. Apparently you have. Oh-oh-oh, I can hear both participants perfectly well. It's fine now. It's fine now. Yeah. Here. That is, here, and, so to speak, we we can discuss, but, how can I say, we all we are now living in a world of RNA, which is denied. And Konin himself too refers. Each ribosome is a working ribozyme. We live at the expense of those who work ribozymes. No, well, the transition is nevertheless to a world of those at least there is the question of the transition to peace proteins that just seem to you completely normal, and very many they absolutely answer that The way the question is put is normal, but here The experiments are too difficult to conduct. This much more difficult to stage experiments than to get with Selex one repository. That's why they simply won't give that much money here, how much does it take to make sense conduct an experiment. There's trouble here basically in this. Well, yes. Well, for me it still means, what remains into your discussion. First of all, I would like to propose our viewers can leave questions, since it's obviously time to move on to some next stage. Uh, yeah, from from the world of the market to the world of proteins, yes, from the world of peace of your discussion among yourselves to peace questions from our viewers. And I ask everyone should be asked only with indicating who will benefit and it will be great if these questions will be in equal proportions, because the first one seems to be the first one The first one should ask if there are any questions, Mikhail Alexandrovich. Well, that is, if he has such questions, Yes. Well, Mikhai Alexandrovich, I am so I realized that Mikhail Alexandrovich doesn’t have ready questions for you. If they exist, then, of course, at Mikhail Alexandrovich's the first word here is beyond any doubts. But I would like to remind you that the question I asked you, I would like to I would really like that though understand your goal setting because you you want money, for example, more were spent effectively or so that just, what is called, attitude towards supporters of intelligent design have ceased to be uh so that they stop marginalize or what is your main task? participation in this discussion at all? First, You know, I'm not, I'm still sure It's absolutely pore and I've experienced it first hand tested well aa serious ideological, so say, here's the litter this very important scientific topic. I want I'm ready to clean up this mess lie down on the embrasure, which I've been doing for a year now or one and a half in a row. This is the first thing. Second. And I want it to be, well, zero, zero. I I want to understand what's going on there. This is mine personal task. I want understand at what stage it is happening understanding how we are all here we sit and where we came from and so on. And this is actually primary for me goal, but it is a zero goal. First, I said, my second task, Vadim, ah-ah, is to prevent the public from receiving distorted information so as not to posts like Alexander's appeared Vladimirovich Markov or at least, if they appear, everyone knew it was Markov. He is a great enthusiast, he has there is such a belief that Q-45 was invented and that's it Everything is already ready. Here. Because to me my friend sends it there, uh, by the way, an Orthodox person, yes, from our one city, aa, Smolensk, and writes: “You see, Alexey, They've already done everything there in abiogenesis. Do you see what Markov is writing? Everything is already "We did it, everything, all the problems are solved." I I want this not to happen, so that The public understood that none of this existed. And for this it is necessary that, uh, after all the state of science in this area was communicated to the public correctly. And when Well, reporters or someone else, ah, well, they are engaged in this kind of cheap PR, so that scientists would slap their hands and cooled the ardor. This is what I want. I want, so that a discussion can reign here, normal scientific discussion, so that the second alternative point of view is not was ridiculed, so that, that is, so that such prizes were awarded, that means, some kind of anti-awards, so that all this, Well, the action, it didn't accompany this a very interesting scientific field. I finished. Thanks a lot. Unfortunately, in American science In this system, scientists are forced don't argue with these scientific journalists, but, on the contrary, they themselves inflate hype, because they will need it to obtain funding. And what is called scientific integrity in English, of course, suffers that our honesty from this, unfortunately, suffers. Well, now they've banned it. Well, there were some in medical science too. scandals, for example, with falsification research on Alzheimer's disease. AND further from biology, for example, Avilyob with his search for interstellar debris asteroids, he, Well If this was not a deliberate forgery, then very close to it. But, unfortunately, for now America remains a notable scientific power, these American problems come back to haunt scientists the whole world, and to solve them, they have change the entire NATO system. Clear? Well then I'll limit myself to Russia. Bye. But, however, I still think, you have to have a goal, something to return science, purity and honesty and competition. In this regard specifically you have a very there will be many allies for science honesty. A lot of people are ready subscribe. Well, great. That's when I answered fully. Yes. Mikhail Alexandrovich, do you share the opinion that it is precisely in this area, in area that is associated with obeogenesis and with evolution, we are absolutely right We share these topics. It is emphasized here this, but nevertheless in both We have some questions about the area today. touched upon. And it seems to you that in these in some areas there is a super-measure, more than usually present of this kind tugging, exaggeration Are these journalistic ducks or not? As well as in other fields of science, approximately the same amount. I would say about the same, because there is quite a bit in this area money compared to all applied research, at least the same ones medical. Well, about medicine, about medicine on Origin Offline Research doesn't give much money Compared to the bibs, very little. That's why the people at Origin of Life Research there they get by, finding practical solutions applications. For example, from the SELKS method RNA aptomiras have grown, which are found some application there in diagnostics and in biosensors. Here are the stories with peptide nucleic acids acids, which began in the Origin of Life, has found application in therapeutic RNA and so on, but in Original of Life Research money is scarce. It's not very funded area. That is the quantity dishonesty may be encouraged there the fact that this area of ​​research, she most often it causes ideological disputes there, because that in the most clearly contradicts religious teachings. And again, in America there are more people for whom it is important. Here. But compared to that it's happening, uh, a big deal of funding, here There is little of this in Origin of Life. What do you mean by contradicts? Well, in fact, I haven't seen that it contradicted something. I have it like this since I'm just interested in understanding the essence, not based on the texts. I don't see contradictions to our texts. Well, that is to say I, uh, understand that all the texts are religious are metaphorical invocations there there are great people among the population. Of course they don't have to be are imbued with precise scientific terminology. That is, it is not very clear here what you are You understand this, but not all readers of these scientific, these same religious texts We agree with you. Well, that is to say, there were monkey trials in the USA. Well, maybe I'm just not aware of it. Okay, I get it. Well, it was about 100 years ago, but these were attempts specifically through the courts ban the teaching of Darwin's theory. By court order. Well, in the fifth year they, then, under a completely meaningless excuse, on the contrary, they banned intelligent design, explaining that the bones fell as they did fell. But this is just a laugh and a sin, that this is this process, yes, Kismiller, It's both funny and a sin. They are not they presented arguments like you did say that you believe in that there it will be invented, this transition will be It was built and the transition from RNA was indeed made. They But that's not what they said. They were just saying, What is there to calculate the probabilities when dice have already fallen out. Well, it's just a disgrace. How is this? could it have happened at all? That is, now the pendulum has clearly swung in the opposite direction side and very strongly. Well, in my opinion look, at least. I have a feeling that in our discussion, yours, or rather discussion What is it now, Mikhail Alexandrovich, please? some forgiveness, Mikhail Alexandrovich, Please. In America, it also depends heavily on state to state. There are much more and less religious states. It's clear. Like this. You seemed to want to read it out Questions from listeners to us. Yes. Yes. I wanted to get to this, yes, and before this means that I have it going on there is a feeling that there are several points in the discussion two somewhat merge into one different terms religious faith and some scientific certainty based on existing prerequisites, perhaps insufficient for unambiguous statements, but nevertheless offering m one of the e possibilities considered as the most probable. Still, it seems to me that between such there is religious confidence significant difference. There is, that's the point, that there is a few things that are around here abiogenesis theory of evolution constantly are mixed. For example, I have done it many times, well, for example, I quote Maxim there Vinarsky. Overall I really like them his videos and how he honestly admits problems of macroevolution, me too like. In general, he is what he is just pronounces this term macroevolution, I really like it too, because it kind of separates it from here this is the question of what is happening before our eyes. Oh, where did everyone go? Is everything there? No. And that's it. Yeah. Something they brought me out to the full screen, and I got scared. Here. And he says, "How, How can one doubt evolution? He says, in the theory of evolution after the covid virus that is there on ours evolved before our eyes. That is, as if what we haven't observed is mixed up and then there are questions about how it all is occurred, the formation of species 500 million there years ago, as I understand it, after all there's a lot of it, let's say, yes, let's so, there are a lot of open questions and there are a lot of difficulties there, what is it The Cimbrian explosion and so on, but this some other time and somewhere more. But the point is that we are always offered not offered doubt the theory of evolution because that we see microevolution here. This is the first one in my opinion, well, such a completely blatant substitution. The second substitution is when they say that, uh, people uh stating that this is a beautiful, complex building with all its its design, called a cell, is not it could have arisen by itself simply because of that or other laws. And, accordingly, we we see either a plan here or there some kind of initial information data of the universe, which is not very distinguishable from the Creator and the plan. But this mixed with religious concepts. It is said: “Ah, so, that is, the creator, and What does this creator look like, who is he? created your god? Why is he like that? "Did you do it all through your ass?" And so on. That is, this second mixture, which, well, I like it very much I wonder why do this? This is the same completely, well, sort of different moments. Is it, uh, well, if, let's say, we convinced that it could not have happened by itself arise, but as the fact that we do not we understand nothing about the Creator, uh, us, uh inclines to continuation, denial it is obvious that this building could not arise? Well, let's say we are in this Are you convinced? This one is philosophical glitch, the third philosophical glitch occurs in the theory of evolution when speech we're talking about created or, uh, left everything as it is Selex, right? That is, well, like this the degree of intervention of scientists in the process. And, roughly speaking, if they do it tomorrow cage, they will make a cage. I stroke my hand to the point of cutting off that all newspapers will say everything is proven, everything It is clear how the cell arose, although it will do and the key word here is do, Yes. Here is the third one. Well, Craig Venter already stated in some the moment that made the cage and the newspapers they stated, yes, that he did, but this, Of course, it was incorrect. Well, yes, it's just DNA from one species. mycoplasma was inserted into a cell of another species mycoplasmas. Yes, this is not at all to the point that yes, there are a lot of here there are a lot of here moments that are visible to the general public, are not explained to the general public and are very in vain. Well, as if we were counting on smart audience, we must do all this to explain, in my opinion, at least measure. So let's get right to the questions of this We will move on to the smartest audience. And a question is sent to Alexey Savateev: "What are the mathematical prerequisites for the existence of the Creator? Do you see?" Exactly the transition from existence is emphasized true but unprovable statement in brackets Gödel's theorem to: "Our "the universe has a creator." I honestly don't understand the question. And this question continued Gödahl's mention of Gödahl? Yes, you go exactly, that is, in the theorem Gödal says nothing directly about the existence of the Creator. This is how you react to the statements that follows from it, come to conviction that, uh, the world is created precisely reasonable The creator here is the complexity. This means that concerning the tower of Gödral, my teacher Shen categorically says: "Don't have it use neither in theological debates for, not against, never. It's simple mathematical result." But if you ask me personally, for me it's there personal testimony. But that is not it something that I can pass on to another. For Vasarman is a certificate of the absence of God, for example. That is, here Not no answer. No way. Thank you. So good. And to Alexey, oh, Lord, I beg your pardon, Mikhail Nikhin I get quite a lot of questions, but They, Yes, that is, there are quite a lot of questions, like It seems to me that the topic is not related to the topic discussions because they concern there relations with other representatives scientific field. But here is one I find which is this is how evolution should work at the level of one or two nucleotides, if in At this point, nature does not yet have a mechanism combination records. Ah, so. How should the theory of evolution work? at the level of one or two nucleotides? Question, apparently implies how it should evolution works when there are no long ones yet nucleotide chains when there are none polynucleotide molecules when Only monodinucleotides exist. This is how I understood this question and this is how I will him to answer. Well, you're more correct, yes, you can here understand. I don't really understand what I mean. If this is what was meant, how biological evolution worked on level of monoidine nucleotides, Most likely she is still at this level didn't work at all. Most likely on this chemistry worked at this level. In order to some kind of replication according to modern ones has begun estimates obtained precisely from attempts to select rebozymes by Selex, it is necessary a chain of at least 50 nucleotides, better in 100 or 200. If there are two or three, there will be no replication yet. Yes. Alexey Vladimirovich, I ask the director Broadcasts bring us Alexey Vladimirovich. I have the following question for you. IN There are thousands of religions in the world. Yes, there are thousands of religions in the world. How you calculate the probability that is yours correct? This is probably the same person asking this question. People have some strange thing another. No, another one, yes. Well, that too. This, by the way, is the fourth thing that I It seems strange, probably, around this the theme that people are trying to attract mathematics into religion, but it's just so crazy, it's it's pointless. It's just that religion answers the question is what will happen to our immortal soul after life leaves us our body. And that's it, she answers evenly. to this question. And it is intended for him to answer. She's just for this and exists. She says there are only people there. Religions say one thing, others say another. But we're talking about, in general terms, how it is morally right for you to live, your consciousness to behave now, when you control it to get something reasonable when you have your own You will no longer be able to control your consciousness. Dot. What does science have to do with this? Excellent answer. There was one acquaintance, who tried to derive the equation karmodynamics. He, yes, was crazy about Hinduism, but nothing He didn't do well. Well, if it's possible somewhere with this to get acquainted, it would be interesting, Maybe. Alexey Vladimirovich, so that say to make amends for the previous question. Uh, there is something here, as it seems to me, more interesting. If you think that life is complicated, too complicated to explain to her that in order to An architect is needed to explain it, then here it seems to me not to be neat the wording, I'm trying to work it out as I go reform. After all, an architect must be even more complex, Yes? But an architect must also be more difficult. Isn't there a contradiction here? No. Why should it be here? Who promised someone that the architect would be simple? Explain. No, nobody promised. But if by yourself a prerequisite for explaining complex life precisely through the architect's hypothesis is it that it is too complicated, then no? there's nothing extra here, actually, further complicating all of this question through one more additional the essence attracts the body. And no one promised that there would be some solution. It's just that if you see a cage, well, I I don't know, again, I've already been scolded here many times for what I refer, not quoting. Well, guys, it has to do with that. a problem I'm struggling with. These people don't want their names to appear in on the air. They don't want to. I won't even to say what position a person should occupy, who said this. Of course he doesn't wants his last name to appear in on the air. He says: "What the cell could appear, high view, Well, yes, that's obvious. This is, well, no leaves no doubt. But we do nothing We don't know, of course, about the author of this we don't know and don't know about the great action Can". Well, how can I attribute it to to him. Here. And by the way, Mikhail Alexandrovich, you said that you They said in some interview that I studied it a little, it means that your claim to models with external design, with reasonable the idea is that there is some kind of idea Very through one place, Yes. But the thing is that if the engineer worked, that's exactly the question evolution that no one denies. This It's easier to make all these beautiful views precisely evolutionarily. That is, well, like, ah, evolutionarily will be, of course, like, for example, some block of the program. Here you are completed the program block, now you I need to make some program, which, if written from scratch, is 100 characters, and if with this block, then 30, but there are already 3,000 in the block. That's all. Here. Here I give you the answer to your question about giraffe, and there is some nerve of his there. That is, here I will answer you directly I'm throwing around your theory of evolution. Well, it’s very good that you admit it, that biological evolution exists. Yes. Well, yes. Well, these are just remains, I think. are lying down. Who will deny it? The question of material mechanism. You only engage an architect for launch of biological evolution. Yes, I do. Did I understand correctly? No. No, I don't think it will happen. Maybe. So I actually do nothing I don't know at the moment, but I it seems that we will see that proteins without here's a neat one, like, here again, here such, yes, construction. Well, I'll say it again. I say, this is my hypothesis in 10 years I'm not making any statements here at the moment. Nothing. I think that in 10 years it will be 10 years we will meet in this place and Let's compare children, Yes. Well, what I mean is the following, that evolution as a process does not deny nobody. That's how the bones lie, that's how everything is in the light, yes. But what mechanisms, can we explain all this? materially using logic from the bottom up without downward causality. Right here very serious problems and doubts. AND You, of course, know me better than me places where nothing is explained yet and it's not clear. That is so i mean the creator could not just start the process, it can to be, and in the future some things too were associated with his participation. Downward causality collides here with an Akama razor after all. But how if we can’t do it differently? explain how it collides? Well, if would some explanation if we are talking about the Creator we know nothing if we attract a new entity about which we know nothing we know and cannot find out what it is why the hell need an explanation then? Well, look, An excuse is like trying to attract the multiverse. This is also pointless. No, well, this isn't really about that which is meaningful or not meaningful. The point is to state that we reached a dead end with material explanations. Here, by the way, we need philosophy. Here you can attract with known material explanations, with famous, I think, we know exactly all the possible material explanations. Well, in this place, yes, it happens again we are returning to the situation that You yourself said how to wait 100 years. That there is nothing here now, Unfortunately, we won't solve it because falsifiability at the moment you they decided themselves, well, sort of admit that it is impossible. Well, I hope it won't happen. never done. So in fact we we are still talking about something that cannot be falsified theories. And in this situation, it’s like, It seems to me that this is also nothing better than just being honest that there was a creator, but we don't know anything about him we know. Well, that's how it is. Well, roughly speaking, here it is so, yes. Kama's razor is still when here is a man, I don’t know, here is a straight road, So you walk along it, yes, and he says: "No, I'm better now, you're better, I'm like this when it should be applied." Well, In general, the question is actually very interesting. The situation is that the road winding, littered with logs, littered stones, and you offer a person like that Come on, wave your arms and fly above Expensive. Well Here is the downward causality - that's A let's go you will fly. No, not at all, although they can adjust it there bulldozer, clear the road. It's clear, It's clear. Yes, but if, so to speak, if at some point it is clear that this is already it is not cleared, then the question is: what about us? In general, we need someone, I'm coming now to some philosophical question, and to us someone guaranteed that we theoretically We can get all the explanations here what do we see? That is, of course no one guaranteed it. Specifically for those people who are into science they are coming, specifically for those people who are into science they are engaged in it, they are engaged in it, it means they think that they are knowable or by at least they enjoy it cognitive processes. Here's the second one. Here's the second one. Right. But when I don't guarantee this at all. Here I am, for example, it is absolutely clear to me that This is a world that is completely unknowable. Even like that there would be absolutely clear boundaries. I'm like mathematician I know where they stand. They are standing through differential equations. Now theories are about this or not? Well, that too, but Gödalya's theorem says, Well, that needs to be formulated precisely. IN any first-order theory has the statement is true but not provable inside her. All. Dot. But it's there, so that it is in Russian, in Russian there may be a theorem situation that true, but unprovable. But that's not all. There are still some nonlinear differential equations, which, with the slightest change in the initial data immediately after some time swing beyond recognition. AND therefore, prediction is impossible. And for me, If you want to know my personal opinion, for me it is too testifies to the Creator. But of course, This is already a personal religious experience. It's me I can't convey it to others somehow. This my understanding of differential equations. Yes. Yes. Just a little bit here the initial data was slightly shaken That's all already. Well, the fact that the weather can't be predict, for example, there are more than 6 days. Such is the case with chaos theory. trying to study, huh? Well, yes, yes, let's say. Well, yes, in particular, that is, there are unknowable sections, and they will not be known in mathematics, We have come to terms with this a long time ago. And therefore for I'm perfectly fine with the fact that science doesn't knows everything. And it's normal for me, agreeing that there was one here creator, e continue to study well in put interesting things in other places experiments. And that's why I don't have this connection works, that once creator, then fold your hands. Here. And, uh, Well, yes, that's how it is. And in principle It seems to me that this is what concerns human consciousness, there is nothing here at all It's not clear, and everyone admits it. And here like, well, yes, in this place, in this place, in my opinion, it’s worth saying honestly, that, well, science is some the most interesting, the most beautiful layer knowledge obtained in an understandable, clear manner prescribed methods and which It's very interesting to do. But still to dare to claim that science is anything at all theoretically it can explain everything, I would did not. No, it can't. Most likely not Maybe. Like this. If you allow me, the question again, well, on this time to Mikhail Nikitin, because Alexey Vladimirovich said many times about marginalizing him the views that I will have to endure, I I'll survive, but somehow That's understandable. Nevertheless, and and anti-awards were mentioned, the anti-award Vral, Yes, and people are interested in how you are treat this kind of projects. You do you think that it rather brings more harm or benefit to the cause of education, to the cause there is development of science. Uh, not necessarily. specifically the anti-award Vral, although it, probably best known in Russian-speaking environment, but in general such kind of anti-award and, perhaps, humorous, comical methods here in confrontation with those whom I don’t know, conventional science does not accept it. This is for Mikhail Alexandrovich, not me. Right? Yes, this is Mikhail Alexandrovich’s question. If this is a question for me. A, Yes, that was a question for you, how do you feel about this? relate, because Alexey's opinion Vladimirovich is well known for this about. Well, by the way, it's not very good. something like that. I told you that, Well, if they want, let them fool around there. That is me not exactly Yes, yes, yes, of course, Certainly. Well, look, over the past n years my The opinion about the role of such awards has changed. That is, if, say, in 2016-17 I I thought it was clearly good and necessary business, now I have this some doubts. Well, here, of course, you need to ask her organizers, are any possible? generally measurable parameters by which you can track performance such a thing. But, so, when the award was received by people who lied, Well, those who are, excuse me, involved in the obvious medical fraud, such as that were. It's good when This is the very same prize that they give to someone media characters like Artemy Lebedeva. I didn’t understand what this was all about, why? What's the point? Here, that is, but this means that the committee time has degraded over the years because They give it to the committee, they decide everything by voting. These are democrats, There isn't anything there. They decide by voting. The committee has degraded. Well, by the way, we are saw this committee. I would be happy to I watched how, uh, that very one was a wonderful academic, eh, doesn't know Oz, so to speak, Orthodox dogmatists or like this lady applies. Well, it's true, you used it too. this argument that the Creator made everything through one place, which we have, Of course there is an answer, but that's okay. No, What I mean is that oh well, it doesn't matter why I, yeah, in general, it seems that her committee degraded. Maybe, I wonder if it has changed, maybe external conditions have changed. And through one place it is enough stories that in living organisms there are very many things are designed in a clear optimal way way. It's clear. This is perfectly explainable within the framework Darwinian evolution because it somehow or other they quickly adapted it from existing previous state. But our human anatomy, it is poorly adapted for walking, crooked and obliquely. Because of this we have problems with spine, migraines, Uh, difficult births are dangerous and there are many other things. problems. Here are some of the more famous ones inhuman examples of this the hypoglossal nerve seems to be the nerve of the giraffe, which goes from the brain to the tongue, making a four-meter loop back to the heart, because the passage of this nerve it didn't originate with the giraffe, but with his fish-like ancestors that did not have long necks, whose heart was the head itself. And this loop is not at all was something complicated. And then the fish came out dry land. Their gills disappeared and they developed neck. In the case of the giraffe, the neck has lengthened, the nerve passage remained as it was, Only under the new conditions did it become unprofitable. That is, Well, these are our questions for the programmer, right? This is a programmer. Why the hell didn't you refactor? in 4 billion years? Where the hell is the refactoring? Why do you have so much technical debt? accumulated? No, well, what else do you have anyway? answer. What is your answer? Yes, it is is called an answer. And which of us, look, in dogmatics there is a fundamental moment: the creator is not knowable. Neither him goals, nor his there. That is it not there. We are entering into that area, which has no answers to any questions something like this, right? That is, if we either want to say that we see here are traces of an intelligent design or, if you want something else there plan, yes, plan. Here we see traces there is an external peak of an external architect. Here so here it is. If I say external architect, these same questions will disappear, Right? Why? Well, what do you mean? Well, because he's an architect. has the right to do absolutely everything that he wants. Well, he does whatever he wants. Just when we say intelligent design, we here reasonable is like this, well, like this adjective, yes, he is so intelligent our point of view. But in fact we have no right to extrapolate The creator of our point of view. Here's the thing case. And this is already a translation of all ours conversation in the plane of religion. This is possible to do, but that's completely different, as it were the conditions are different. Well, that's clear. Here. But for religion, well, like I, uh, this one The argument about the nerve is really here those with whom I discussed it, inside it does not evoke religious culture none Well yes, maybe he will call how is it young earth, yeah, uh, where Everything should be read clearly. Well, I don't know. Yes, yes, yes. Well, still majority Most believers do not share this, that means position. That's how it is. Well, since uh We've been together for almost 2 hours now we are on air, then, unfortunately, we should gradually wrap up. Although, Of course, the discussion is interesting and, obviously she hasn't been there for two hours it is exhausted, to put it mildly, but nevertheless less. And I will suggest that if the participants have something to say as their own, how to say, the final word, some final remark, this Wonderful. Uh, we started with Alexey. Vladimirovich. It will probably be right Now let Michal speak first To Alexandrovich. Yes. Ah, well, I'm, in general, grateful to you for that, that you called me. This is interesting a format, uh, which is rare. That is much more often there I either perform in front of an audience that, well, doesn't have sufficient level to set such questions that were asked today. Here. And when? Yes, it is the opponent, and he asks such questions of a serious level, this allows agree on something new and check yourself to make sure you haven't stayed in delusions. This was a good one and valuable. experience. Thank you. Thank you so much for your kind words, Mikhail. Alexandrovich. I am very glad get to know each other, although not in person yet, but through the screen. Oh, and yes, I am also very grateful. A lot of things became clear to me. A, Much became clear. Uh, and Now I really want to, so that you could discuss with someone from chemists. I'll try someone, well, I kind of I would have already convinced one. Well, essentially, more I'm not negotiating with you, of course, but how would Yes, I would be interested in that too, Certainly. That's it, then here I am, and I was even more so It would be interesting to provide a site. WITH I will do it with pleasure. I thank you from the bottom of my heart all of today's participants. Yes, and I hope we can succeed agree to continue this discussion. I don't think it's useless. AND despite the fact that Mikhail Alexandrovich I called this idea stupid, but I still I would suggest our viewers to move on, subscribe to claw supervision in Telegram and take part in the survey, because the polls on our channel are not about who was right in terms of content and who was wrong convincing in terms of form. Here we are on cognitive supervision People, of course, answer with bias. Alexey Vladimirovich, I am completely with you. agree. And yet the discussion that is unfolding in comments in this regard, I It seems not useless. There is Interesting thoughts, yes. Here, if you remember, for example, I don't agree considered you the winner in the debate with Alexander Palchin. She will turn around immediately after the end of our discussion Here. So thank you so much again to all participants. I think, It was interesting, very interesting. I hope it's not the last time. we meet in this and maybe in others compositions on this issue. And everyone I also thank the viewers from the bottom of my heart. And before new meetings. All the best. Goodbye to everyone. Bye bye, friends. From me links, I'm a chemist, I'm, well, in in the distant future, the intelligent program plan research, scientific, yes.