НИКИТИН vs САВВАТЕЕВ: Как возникла жизнь?

Hello everyone, dear friends. You are watching Cognitive Oversight. Today, once again, we’re not having a debate per se, but a discussion. It’s not even clear which is more interesting. Joining us today are Alexey Vladimirovich Savateev and Mikhail Alexandrovich Nikitin. And here on Cognitive Oversight, the intense discussion about the origin of life on Earth continues. A question that is, to put it mildly, non-trivial and, I hope, of interest to many of our viewers today. I welcome not only the viewers of Cognitive Oversight, but also those watching via our rebroadcasts. I know there are quite a few such channels. I hope that everyone there is also glued to their screens and ready, uh, to engage with great interest and immersion, uh, in our discussion today. I ask everyone to write in the stream comments whether the audio and video are good, so that, once we are sure of that, we can proceed to the, strictly speaking, discussion. And before I introduce our guests again, I will briefly recount the backstory. Uh, well , I could say "in the beginning was the word," but it’s not quite that ancient, right. The backstory is as follows. Uh, relatively recently, Alexey Vladimirovich Savateev was a guest on my channel, who has debated representatives of Russian science communication—I suppose that’s how you could put it—with Alexander Panchin. It was a fairly interesting debate. And Alexey Vladimirovich expressed a number of grievances, a number of disagreements with what some members of the popular science community say about the origin of life. And perhaps the sharpest criticism was directed at Mikhail Nikitin. And Mikhail Nikitin agreed to respond publicly, to express his point of view —perhaps more concisely and in a more concentrated manner—and to respond directly to Alexey Vladimirovich regarding his grievances. Therefore, we have agreed on the following. Alexey Vladimirovich will now reiterate his criticism—perhaps more briefly, but nonetheless remind the viewers what it consists of—and Mikhail Alexandrovich , in turn, will begin to respond, and otherwise, the discussion will proceed in an open format. And my task will be to get involved as minimally as possible to keep order, if that is even required. I think our esteemed speakers can handle that themselves, so my role here is small. Well then, I will ask our broadcast director to connect Alexey Vladimirovich and Mikhail Alexandrovich. Thank you, gentlemen, for agreeing to take part in the discussion today. And as per our agreement, I give the floor to Alexey Vladimirovich Savateev. Please, go ahead and state your criticism. Yes, friends, hello. So, in fact, uh, it all started, of course, quite a long time ago, but if I start telling you about everything now, Vadim will take away my microphone for being too long-winded. So I'll be brief: on chemist James Tour's channel, there was a very interesting poll where a significant percentage, like twenty percent or something similar, believed that a frog had already been created in a lab that just popped into existence on its own. And also, many of them— more than half, I don't remember the exact figures—were absolutely convinced that the origin of life from, well, from rocks, is an undeniable fact that has long been proven by all scientists. I became interested: how could that be? Because if you look into the scientific literature, you see something completely different. You see huge problems discussed in terms ranging from "it's impossible and we'll never be able to" to "well, maybe we'll manage it someday," but in any case, certainly not a ready-made frog. And the question is: how did the popular science community manage to convince everyone else that everything is actually fine? Well, I stumbled upon a video with Mikhail Alexandrovich, and here is what he says: "Starting the broadcast." Uh, Alexey Vladimirovich, unfortunately, we can't hear what you've connected, so perhaps you'll have to quote it verbally. Fine. That, that doesn't work that way. Yes. And why now? I turned it on, my voice is audible, but Mikhail's voice is... unfortunately, no. Yes, we could have set this up in advance, but since it wasn't discussed, if you could perhaps briefly mention the video I sent yesterday, the video I sent yesterday, which was on Vitaly's channel—who is setting everything up for us right now—I sent the specific timestamp, and Mikhail Alexandrovich can certainly listen to himself again later. There. And it says there that in Kunin's book, in Kunin's article, it turns out that we get a ribosome right away, and the probability is such that somewhere in the universe it could well have happened, says Mikhail Alexandrovich. And that is, well, radically and strikingly different from what Kunin actually established. In reality, when he was calculating the RNA world, he came up with 10 to the power of minus ...and what else? Well, let's say it's debatable, although in my opinion it's impossible, but either way, it's comparable to the number of atoms in the universe. So, what he calculated for the ribosome—even if I'm just a bit of a biology fool, I still understand that ribosomes are already very serious, large machines with proteins. I mean, it’s already a serious level. And he, Koonin, ended up with 10 minutes, which is, of course, incompatible with any scientific theory . And so Koonin himself had to turn to —how should I put it—if someone turns to intelligent design, others turn instead to an infinite number of unobserved universes with the anthropic principle. So, they sort of retreated into a completely unscientific, philosophical plane. Eugene Koonin retreated. He found no other way out. He writes that no transition from the RNA world to the protein world is visible, so let’s calculate the protein one. And here is what he got. And Mikhail Alexandrovich, in my view, completely distorted this—perhaps purely by mistake, but let him answer for himself. In that case, I give the floor to Mikhail Nikitin. Ah, wonderful. So, I won't be defending Koonin. He is perfectly capable of defending himself. First of all, Alexei correctly noted that I, unfortunately, got mixed up when quoting Koonin, and that indeed the volume of the observable universe is not enough to realize the probability Koonin calculated. But what matters more isn't that; what matters is that I disagree with Koonin. Whether I quoted him correctly or incorrectly. I do not agree with him. So, why did Koonin calculate such a high—such a low probability? Why did he think that to start Darwinian evolution you need a ribosome, which is a rather complex system? Unfortunately, I haven't seen detailed explanations from him on this, but the mainstream view among biologists interested in this question is the RNA world scenario as the beginning of life, implying that simpler self-replicating systems based on RNA existed before the ribosome. The RNA world, and the ribosome is already from the next stage, that is, the transition to the RNA-protein world. The question of the transition to the RNA-protein world is indeed poorly studied because experiments are harder to conduct there than modeling simpler systems. So, I will try to explain why I consider the RNA world a good option, sufficiently likely to be realized. It is known that Darwinian evolution via mutation and natural selection can create complex systems from simpler ones. Well, and this works not only in biology; it also works in applied fields like evolutionary programming. For example, there is a method of creating program code using Darwinian evolution. And in some applications, it is used. There. For Darwinian evolution to begin, four conditions must be met: reproduction, heredity, mutation, and selection. Reproduction, meaning some elements of the system must create their own copies. Mutation means that the copies must not be perfectly accurate. Heredity, that these copying errors must be passed on to subsequent generations. And selection, that these different copying errors must affect the probability of reproducing further. This is basically the foundation. I understand that Alexey wants more specific answers from me. Why do I consider this relatively probable without invoking the multiverse? Yes, Alexey. Actually, the first thing I wanted, I already received, which is an admission that you made a mistake. Quoting Kuminami, yes, but one must understand that the audience watching this video is very numerous, and they are reacting to this mistake, you see? So, it's good that this is being said, that it is being said live, so that we understand that a leading scientist in this field holds the view he stated in his book and in numerous subsequent interviews. Well, later on, no. The fact that you believe the RNA world could perfectly transition into a protein world, I know that from your book, which I have looked through. Well , I might not have understood everything in it, of course, but nonetheless, I do have certain comments . Especially, chemists have comments. Chemists checkmate this. And it is an absolute checkmate for a number of reasons: the chirality problem, various thermodynamic aspects, and so on. Well, the Gibbs potential, they say, in the RNA world, it would all die instantly, and nothing would come of it. But, of course, we can discuss further; you can state your point of view, but I think it’s not very interesting, because you have surely stated it many times on this subject. And here, perhaps, instead of questions and answers, I can just talk about probabilities. Why do I disagree with you on the probability assessments? Well, by the way, regarding the question of protein evolution, which you also seemed to want to touch upon. That is And we will, we will move on to the next point now. I actually wanted, if it goes the way I want, I received your presentation, there were links to Jack Szostak and other chemists working with RNA. Well, so Szostak’s objection about the fact that ribozyme nucleases, i.e., those that destroy RNA, appear with a much higher probability. It is resolved by the very direction that Szostak himself is developing— compartments—meaning when each RNA molecule sits in its own little soap bubble, a very, very simple analogue of a cell. In this case, if it destroys RNA, it will destroy itself and no one else. If different RNAs are kept in compartments and don't mix with each other very effectively, then this problem and its solution, in general, can be seen. Well, it can be seen, but when they...well, I mean, it’s visible from your point of view, but it doesn't exist yet. That is, there is no solution yet, otherwise Jack Szostak would have already announced it long ago. Therefore, we really need to distinguish between things here, as, well, a non-professional should receive information about what is actually 100 times scientifically proven and has been experimented on many times. And what is, well, from the point of view of certain biologists, possible or impossible—until it is proven, it is still just a belief that it is possible . It is not scientific, yes. The results you cited, the surveys about how 20%of those surveyed believed that a frog had already been synthesized—this is, unfortunately, a result of how science journalism works. Not even science popularization, but precisely science journalism, when a university releases a press release about their scientists 'new work, and then journalists from mainstream media pick it up. Over a few cycles of retelling, all sorts of caveats that scientists love so much are discarded by journalists, and the results are presented in a much more fantastic way than they really are. I just refer you to the famous comic where a scientist raped a journalist, which is exactly about that. So, it's about communication. I see, we have that problem too. We recently had such a situation. Vanya Remizov, my friend, obtained some kind of solution for a class of differential equations through infinite iterations, but it was publicized as a refutation of Galois theory. God forbid, I just don't know, I was holding my head, the journalists...That's understandable. But it seems to me that in this case, the scientific community should act quickly and sharply. In that instance, that is exactly what we did. You and I went on air together and said: "Forget about any refutations or sensations." It was a good piece of work. Well, quite, let's say, normal, an average-level thing, well, maybe even a very, very decent one, but not a breakthrough or a revolution. So it seems to me that even your personal duty, I think, is to dampen these things. So, friends, saying that the transition to the protein world and the cell itself is scientific, for us, is not the case yet. There is nothing substantiated here. Work is being done in many directions, but there are a huge number of problems. The chemists really grilled me on that. I kept glancing at my notes last time, and everyone said, "Why do you keep staring over here, staring over here?" Well, I will try not to stare now, yes, I'll try not to stare, but the fact is, I can read what they said—I don't think everyone would be interested, but I can just send the chemists' comments regarding the transition from the RNA world later. So, the point is that you can't really call crystal growth, for instance, life. That is, well, completely meaningless. There. Or, I don't know, some kind of polyethylene giants that also just keep growing. So what if they grow? I mean, for the concept of life, we have to proceed from what my chemist friend says. A living organism has boundaries, maintains a high chemical potential for a long time, and participates in metabolism. These boundaries are not the walls of the flask where it's all being done. Right. And in that sense, well, chemists really checkmate this idea. So, Mikhail Alexandrovich, you believe it will eventually be achieved, but the chemists don't. But that’s not the point. So, is the cell membrane considered the boundary for chemists? Well, that's an interesting question to ask. Let's ask. I will definitely ask. So, is there no other boundary for cellular organisms? Well, I would say, as of today, yes. I mean, the cell membrane is what the cell...yes. Yes. If a cell were to arise by itself in a lab, that would probably be a very serious breakthrough. But wait, the key word here is "by itself," because looking at these latest things—what I read from Markov, for example—I don't agree that it's just the journalists 'fault. Markov is to blame. Alexander Vladimirovich Markov wrote about this Q45 in his blog. I showed it to the chemists. They said, "Damn, first of all, there’s the chirality issue." Meaning, everything was carefully selected. Some reactions were stopped at the right moments, others started at the right moments, and finished materials were introduced. Secondly, it’s still about the RNA world, which isn't going anywhere. And overall, well , it’s nothing special. An interesting, a very interesting experiment, certainly, scientifically it will find its place. But why does Markov, as a journalist, make such a statement that we have found a portal for explaining abiogenesis? No, of course we haven't. It’s like saying, we’ve created a robot that writes music. What is the keyword here? Created. That is, a living person created it. An experimenter created it. So, if you and I, Mikhail Alexandrovich , if we now agree that at the dawn of life there must have existed an experimenter in this grand laboratory, then that's it, hurray. Look, the issue is resolved. Regarding the experimenter in the story about that Q45, they tried to model many stages at once, so the experimenters added substances at the necessary moments. But if we take typical experiments on creating ribozymes, they use the SELEX technique, a method of artificial selection, which depicts Darwinian evolution. And the experimenter does not know in advance which ribozyme will result, what shape it will have, or what its sequence will be. And so, this is in no way intelligent design. Furthermore, there is a very interesting discussion between these chemists and geologists on the topic of which order of adding reagents is possible in natural conditions, and which is not. Which reagents are even possible in natural conditions, and which are not. This is a separate, very large and interesting field, in which, once again, chemists and geologists have some problems communicating with each other. And, for example, the work of this Cambridge team under Sutherland, which showed cool results on nucleotide synthesis, raises some questions among geologists about the chemistry assumed there and whether such chemistry was even possible. And under the influence of geologists' criticism, they did move in the right direction, for example, trying to figure out what happens if you add hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde at the same time, because before that, chemists were happily saying that from hydrogen cyanide you get nitrogenous bases, and from formaldehyde, through the Butlerov reaction, you get ribose. Then you have to figure out how to join them. Well, it turned out that joining them is very , very difficult. But Sutherland's team came up with an idea, using atmospheric chemistry models that date back to Carl Sagan in the seventies, that the photolysis of methane in a nitrogen atmosphere with the presence of CO2 and water vapor should produce both hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde simultaneously, which would both be extracted from the atmosphere by raindrops and then react with each other. And Sutherland's team showed that a different chemical reaction occurs there, not the Butlerov reaction , which through a different way, but still effectively, leads to the synthesis of the necessary sugars. So, there is still, of course, a mountain of work to be done. And there are interdisciplinary communication problems here. There are chemists who get very arrogant and don't listen to criticism from geologists, for example. Yes. But in any case, uh, let's say, an outsider coming into this finds a very, very heated dispute. For example, you probably know that your book The Origin of Life contains a whole treatise, uh, in which carefully, after... Oh, well, that's cool. I'll send the link. So, uh, uh... no one has brought me that link yet. I see. I'll, so, I'll bring it. Ah, there it is. Oh, Nikitin's book The Origin of Life. Here is a, uh, large, large, six-part treatise, which, unfortunately, due to my, well, profound lack of knowledge in biology and chemistry—although I had excellent grades in chemistry in school , but, uh, a lot of time has passed since then—I can only roughly understand that, uh, what has been done now...where did everyone go? Where? Where did the window go? Alexey Vladimirovich, maybe while you are sending that link, I can interrupt your discussion for a moment. I'll then, as a representative of the viewers to some extent, ask... ask both of you to clarify your disagreement more clearly, because so far it is not very clear what the discussion is actually about. I mean, let me briefly say how it looks to me from the outside. Alexey Vladimirovich said there is an error in the citation. Yes, Mikhail said, "Yes, there is an error, but it doesn't change my fundamental views." And we seem to have moved past that question. And then the question: "Mikhail Alexandrovich is unlikely to abandon his ideas about abiogenesis, and Alexey Vladimirovich is unlikely to abandon his view that abiogenesis is not the state of a person, which is your point." Alright, I'll say it now, I'll say it now. Okay, I'll say it now. So, the feeling is that, roughly speaking, many letters have been made, but they don't form an alphabet. The letters themselves don't mean anything yet. When you try to assign meaning, everything dies very quickly. That's my feeling. It's clear that Mikhail Alexandrovich might have a different one. But what is important, and we can probably agree with Mikhail Alexandrovich, is that, uh, there is no explanation for abiogenesis as of now. Well, I mean, you could bet that, roughly speaking, in 200 years, nothing will be explained yet. And there's the chirality problem, which I think Mikhail Alexandrovich fully acknowledges, yes, because chemists say it's a 100%issue that simply cannot be bypassed, because nature is a completely symmetric problem, but solutions are also starting to emerge there. Well, they are emerging in the sense that the concentration is slightly skewed to one side, but you need them all to be of one type. And chemists say it's not that they aren't emerging, well, what I mean is this: scientists —a biologist later told me this explicitly: "We biologists believe in abiogenesis.""That's it, leave us alone , we believe." Yes, of course, nothing is explained, we just believe in it. You can believe in whoever you want, but we believe in abiogenesis. So, as I understand it, biologists, including Mikhail Alexandrovich personally, have this sort of knightly, order-like conviction that everything that is unclear here, we will eventually resolve anyway. Or what else? And that's where a black wall, yes, arises. Or what else? What else are we to do if chemists give us a verdict of checkmate , if combinatorics gives us a verdict of checkmate, what are we supposed to do? Yes. Meaning the next question always turns into an attack on me. The biologist says, "What do you want?"" Fine, okay, I admit it, I admit it, there's nothing here." It's a matter of faith. Only, what are you trying to say , that in science we must admit, if everything you say about abiogenesis is true and the cell could not have appeared on its own without this architect? What are you trying to say? Yes. The biologist, you mean? But I would give him a kick so he wouldn't speak for all biologists at once, because my position is not like that. I have no holy faith in abiogenesis. I have a presumption, a more or less standard presumption for science, that we explain ongoing processes first with causes from the same field of science, in general, without involving something more distant, until it fails, until the explanation with proximate causes clearly breaks down. Well, it's clear that this is a presumption, meaning it's not a 100%certainty that everything must be exactly that way. Uh-huh. And the second consideration is from the philosophy of science, from Lakatos's research programs, that from Uh-huh. the abiogenesis hypothesis follows a clear research program: what experiments can be set up to test it, refine it, and clarify the specific mechanisms. But what kind of research program follows, let's say, from intelligent design? What interesting experiments can be set up to confirm or refute this hypothesis, and what would that give us? I'm afraid I don't understand that. Well, actually, the research program related to biogenesis has produced many interesting experiments and, in fact, a mass of practical applications, starting, well, if we take it in a broad sense, with the technology of preserving food in tin cans. From Nicolas Appert and so on. No, actually, that's a very strange view of intelligent design, that it means you should just give up and stop doing science, but I'm not one of those . Okay, I tried to find proposals for experiments or research programs from proponents of intelligent design. Perhaps I didn't look hard enough. If you know any, tell me, I'd be curious to hear. Well, all right, at least I can propose one. I can say there is definitely one scientific hypothesis which, in the case of assuming that a cell appears according to some plan and that there is downward causation—I would call it that—it’s impossible to do without it. I can propose one, and then I will ask a question. All right, go ahead. Ah, before moving on to proteins. So, the next idea is: what if we were somehow able to confirm that it will never come together and that it is completely pointless to pour billions of dollars into experiments in this Origin of Life research, and if we could all just admit that, then it would be clear that, for example, on Mars or any other planet with suitable conditions, they call them exoplanets, right? There could very well be life there too, because we are no longer required to calculate the probabilities in that case, right? So, the scientific hypothesis is that you don't need to calculate probabilities, because intelligent design...well, like you walked into a room, and coins are scattered everywhere, coins are lying all over the place, everything is shaking, and the coins are just lying in a mess. And in another room, everything is connected with levers and springs. I keep telling everyone this analogy because chemists fed it to me. And inside, all the coins are lying in the same way, and the room is securely protected from any external earthquake. Well, it's clear that a person was simply there who placed them and made all those springs. It's like you're looking such an obvious truth right in the face. And if you just admit that we will never figure out how it was done. But since we understand that there was an architect, why not assume that there could be life on these planets as well? We no longer need to say that we are alone in the universe, because the probability hypothesis doesn't work in that case. And there you go, you could spend all this money on searching for extraterrestrial civilizations and establishing contact with them. But in any case, these are already quite scientific questions, a scientific program. I think that, in my opinion, the intelligent design hypothesis is absolutely unnecessary for the search for extraterrestrial civilizations. People are searching for extraterrestrial civilizations even without it. Well, the hypothesis that there is also life on them carries much more scientific weight if we assume that it was assembled by an architect. Well, at least there's a possibility that life in our galaxy arose once on Earth but migrated to Mars via lithopanspermia, so it still makes sense to look for it on Mars. Once again, the idea that we shouldn't calculate probabilities at the dawn of life clearly implies something. Well, okay, if you don't agree, then you don't agree. But not having to calculate probabilities is certainly encouraging for the search for life on exoplanets, but do we have any chance of learning about the mechanism this architect used? Any research program in that direction? We would really like to learn something from this architect. Well, that's interesting, that's an interesting question. So, there could be all sorts of answers here. And just as you suggest that no single biologist should speak for all biologists, I suggest that no one speak for the theory of intelligent design, especially since it's unclear what it means. It only means what we see and observe. Roughly speaking, the more I look into it, the more I realize it's about the apparent impossibility of this having happened on early Earth or anywhere in the universe. But the point is, I can't speak for everyone or what programs they might have, but I can take this as homework and propose specific research programs for the theory of intelligent design. I'm ready to take on the homework. Ah, listen, that would be very interesting and cool, yes, that I took it. And in response, I accept the following. I will ask the next question in response. Here is a question, Mikhail Alexandrovich: what would have to happen for you to reject the theory of abiogenesis? That is, is it possible for me to reject the theory of abiogenesis? Is it possible to imagine some kind of ... Uh-huh. Look, here we are, in fact, dealing with excellent potential for a logical fallacy. It is called proving non-existence through incomplete induction. That is, incomplete induction is when we make a judgment about an entire group or category based on some of its representatives. Yes, I am not misrepresenting it. I still want to get an answer to this personal question. You can ask me anything later . I am just starting to answer this question. It just requires a little bit of philosophy. Without it, it won't work. Uh-huh. Yes. Yes. So, complete induction is impossible if we have a very large, and especially an uncountable, set. Therefore, in science , scientists always have to deal with, and have to use, partial induction— incomplete induction. And to prove the existence of something. We can find one swan in the world, point our finger at it, and conclude from this that swans exist. But to conclude that no swans exist in the world, obtaining data for such a conclusion would be much more difficult. Under no set of data would such a conclusion be absolutely, one hundred percent reliable. Well, even if we covered the entire Earth with cameras in real-time and knew for sure that swans cannot fly in the stratosphere or bury themselves in the ground, well then, in general, one could, well, sufficiently convincingly prove that swans do not exist on planet Earth. But the question would remain: what if some aliens transported them somewhere else, to another galaxy? And how would we prove that no swans exist in another galaxy? In short, proving non-existence is a very complicated thing. And, uh, you are talking about proving the non-existence of working scenarios for abiogenesis. No, I am simply asking, under what conditions would you reject this theory ? I am just getting to that. I am getting to that, yes. Such conditions do exist. Uh, if, say, after 100 years of intensive work by scientists in this field, they fail to create a...... stably replicating system at the level of complexity of the RNA world, that is , pre-cellular, if it doesn't work, then I will admit that, apparently, yes , abiogenesis does not work. I see. So, two comments on this. First, first, naturally, you mean that scientists create the conditions, and then they close the laboratory and leave. Well, so that it is exactly that way, so it wouldn't be the case that what the scientists created proves...What did it prove? That intelligence could create what they created here. I mean, it wouldn't be proof even if scientists created a cell with their own hands. The key word here is still "creation," isn't it? Creating ribozymes via SELEX isn't like assembling a machine from nuts and bolts. It’s that we created the conditions for evolution, which then does something we can't predict or calculate. All right. And tell me, please, SELEX isn't development based on a pre-existing plan, it's not development based on blueprints and specs, you know, do you understand? The products of evolution, there are levels of intervention. It's still chiral, as far as we know. By the way, about chirality. It’s been 175 years since the invention of stereochemistry, but that’s not enough for you yet? Yes, like 100 years of experiments. So 175 years of experiments haven't solved the chirality problem. It was needed at every stage, not just for explaining abiogenesis. Chemists needed it like air. But this problem hasn't been solved. Chemists clearly state this. I'm afraid we can hardly argue with that. Yes. So. Or maybe those aren't the right 100 years. And what exactly is the problem of chirality in chemistry? Well, it’s often needed; I know about chirality in abiogenesis, but in chemistry, I don't know what the problem is. Well, if you're talking about chirally-specific syntheses and the separation of chiral isomers, well, apparently yes, because for chemists, the separation of chiral isomers is a standard method. That's chromatography on a column with a chiral sorbent. Moreover, we have an easily accessible, cheap natural chiral sorbent called cellulose. You modify it with some phosphates or something. But they say: "Where did it come from?"" That's" they say that no, the problem isn't solved, because whenever it's solved, some kind of non-asymmetric source is used; you always have to pull in one of the two hands, and it's unclear where it could have come from at the start or how it was used at the beginning of that abiogenesis stage, right? Ah, so you are talking about abiogenesis after all, not chemistry. About abiogenesis, I can speak more definitively. First, we have data on the chirality of meteoritic organic matter, where many meteorites show a chiral bias between left and right amino acid isomers. I’ll formulate it in a way that makes it clear, without compromising any major scientific principles. So, the method that will be invented if abiogenesis is achieved in 100 years— well, in a lab, under conditions where you just set it and leave—that method would be very useful to chemists for many of their production processes, including those for everyday use. Well, that's what they say. And that's 175 pharmaceuticals. They need chirally directed syntheses there. Well. It's strange that we can't seem to do it. I subscribe to Science magazine, and there are fairly regular articles from various chemistry groups stating, "We’ve done this chiral-specific synthesis," or "We’ve done that chiral-specific synthesis, we did it, we’re great." Well. Yes, but they always start by using, well, using this...Let's separate the wheat from the chaff. Let's. decide whether we are talking about the chemical industry or abiogenesis. Alright, let's do this. In the chemical industry, this problem is certainly being solved. As for abiogenesis, that’s a different story . And. it starts with meteorites that have a slight chiral bias, the causes of which aren't exactly known, though there are several relatively plausible hypotheses related to either the circular polarization of ultraviolet radiation in star-forming regions, or secondary electrons after beta decay, or that very fundamental asymmetry. uh, of the weak nuclear interaction and its contribution to the rest energy of molecules, or to mechanisms of chiral asymmetry amplification during recrystallization. By the way, there is an important argument for this: among chondritic meteorites, a stronger chiral asymmetry is found in those that had a higher degree of aqueous alteration, where the meteorite's contents interacted more and longer with liquid water, providing more opportunities for the recrystallization of organic matter. There. Yes, I see. But chiral asymmetry is simply, bluntly , older than life. There were no organisms in these meteorites. This is chiral asymmetry that is older than life and independent of life. So, do I understand correctly, that it could have helped biogenesis? At the initial stage, shouldn't they all be the same, all identical? Not necessarily. For nucleotide polymerization, there are conditions where, from a racemic mixture, you get mostly chirally pure chains. For this, you need mineral substrates—clays are best. Well, okay, I actually heard the answer . The answer is this: if it takes 100 years, the answer is that we will have to wait 100 years. But in our lifetime, the answer is that there is a huge number of hypotheses that, one way or another, support your belief that abiogenesis will eventually be demonstrated. But as of today, none of this exists. And, accordingly, as of today, within our lifetime, your belief in abiogenesis is unfalsifiable. Well, in other words, it’s an unfalsifiable scientific theory. Actually, Konstantin Severinov says the exact same thing. In that, uh, little clip that you probably saw while preparing. I did send it in advance. Konstantin Severinov spoke about Darwinian evolution, says that it is, yes, Let's not confuse them, but it is always presented together. After all, for it to start, abiogenesis must... It's very stupid that it's presented together. In my lectures, I clearly separate them, that abiogenesis is an event that happened once and quite a long time ago. Darwinian evolution is a process that has been going on for billions of years. And continues right now before our eyes. Uh. Cases of parallel evolutionary events that can be compared. Therefore, we understand much more about Darwinian evolution than about abiogenesis. These are different things. All right. So, Darwinian evolution was claimed by Konstantin Severinov to be an inherently unfalsifiable science and theory. And in this, well, Konstantin isn't here, so I can't cross-examine him. But I want to draw an analogy here and ask if, for you, abiogenesis is still an unfalsifiable theory. Well, because we won't live for 100 years, right? Look, falsificationism in sciences dealing with the past is very difficult in general, because, who was it, Popper who came up with it, he focused on physics, where events occur on a human time scale, laboratory experiments are conducted, and so on. But those sciences that deal with long processes, taking thousands or millions of years, there isn't always—or rather, there is no way—to conduct an experiment that would reproduce these events within a human lifespan. This problem exists in cosmology, in archaeology, in evolutionary biology, and in geology. Falsificationism in sciences dealing with slow processes, especially slow processes of the past, works poorly. If you apply it just like in ordinary physics, there won't be any science left there. Therefore, one has to find a way around it, therefore one has to, well, treat it... That is, look for traces of the past in the present and, well, look for consequences. Of hypothetical past events. And when comparing two hypotheses about what happened in the past, one must derive consequences for the present from both of these hypotheses. Preferably in such a way that the consequences in the present differ for these two hypotheses. And then we look for these consequences, these traces in the present, traces of the past in the present. So. One has to do it something like this. And the fact that Earth's fauna changes over time, well, it wasn't really disputed by biologists even 50 years before Darwin, because paleontologists had already dug up enough remains of different ages. It was clear that we have Paleozoic deposits containing trilobites, eurypterids, fish bones, and amphibian bones, but not a single mammal bone whatsoever. Yet, in more recent deposits, mammals do appear. Where do they come from? How do they appear, from whom, and in what way? That is a contentious question. But the fact that evolution exists—meaning some species appear, some disappear, and some change—was hardly in doubt for biologists long before Darwin. As for the mechanisms of evolution, there were, of course, many different ones. You may have heard of Lamarck's theory of evolution, the exercise and disuse of organs. Well, it was eventually rejected through falsification because it proposed a mechanism of heredity that could be tested experimentally. Lamarck's theory of evolution implied that if you cut the tails off mice for many generations, at some point they would start to be born with shorter tails. This experiment was conducted, and it showed that no, nothing of the sort happens. Mice are not born with shorter tails even if you cut their tails for 100 generations. So, the falsification of specific theories regarding evolutionary mechanisms is possible. And by the way, in the case of Darwinian evolution, well, it is far from the only one considered today. If we look at evolution not at the species level, but at the DNA sequence level, at the letters in the DNA, the main mechanism at work is not Darwinian, but Kimura’s neutral theory of evolution, involving mutation and drift. Natural selection isn't at play there because with 3 billion letters, for example, in the human or mouse genome, selection cannot effectively act on all 3 billion letters at once. It can only act on a very small fraction of them. Therefore, at the letter level, Kimura's theory of evolution works for 90%, and at most 10 %is governed by Darwinian evolution. So , its limited applicability, rather than a complete rejection, is well-supported by observable data. Whether or not to consider this falsifiability, I don't know. If we can limit the scope of a theory, that is very interesting. Not rejecting it entirely, but limiting its scope of application. Is that falsificationism or not? Well, in general, this is we can find cases where Darwin's theory is obviously incorrect and does not work. We have found them. Scientific inquiry. This is what's called normal scientific inquiry. But the thing that, uh, slightly worries me here is the enormous confusion in terminology. Because, well, uh, in itself, I mean, yeah, so, wait, to close the subject of abiogenesis, as I understand it, there is no, well, other than a hundred-year wait, any way for you, uh, well, roughly speaking, for you, there is no potentially possible scenario, other than a hundred years of fruitless searching, for you to accept another point of view, that abiogenesis is impossible and the cell is the result of, well, what can we call it, either a creator, or an architect, or ... Perhaps if I talk to those chemists you are in contact with, I might change my point of view. Understood. Understood. Alexey Vladimirovich, by the way, you often refer to chemists. Perhaps you could say, if they are public figures, maybe you could just name their names, perhaps they have work and our viewers could familiarize themselves with it. They are not public figures, but one of them agreed to give an interview. So we could try to organize that. Maybe, as well. By the way, it would be great to do it in a discussion format, perhaps with Mikhail, if Mikhail agrees , because I, as you understand, am a poor conversationalist on these issues. I understand. Right. I will provide Mikhail, I will provide him with reviews of his books, of his book. Well , maybe not the length of his book, but at least, uh, there are definitely about 50 pages there. Right. And, of course, as someone who isn't a biologist, I can't really listen to this, but I mean, I can't really understand what is written there, but the general gist is that, roughly speaking, it’s not just a house. This cell is something super complex, it is more complex than any human system, right, and so biologists rejoice when they manage to get a few bricks of this house in the lab, which they don’t know how to assemble, don’t know if the materials are right, and so on. Well, that is the essence of what he presents. It is clear that it is very difficult to judge from the outside, but it might be interesting for Mikhail Alexandrovich to at least skim through it. Right. Alexey Vladimirovich, could I ask you a follow-up question just to better understand your position? You are criticizing the position. Yes, yes, yes, no problem, of course. Well, time is not criticizing. I mean, I am not criticizing Mikhail, just asking critical questions, yes, to Mikhail Alexandrovich. I just wanted to clarify , you are talking about, well, you are asking how to falsify this theory. That seems like a completely fair question to me. But here, as a viewer, I would like to understand: what kind of alternative is being proposed? Because Mikhail Alexandrovich says that, well, we need to test it, we are currently testing, there are no results yet, yes. But if there were an alternative where it would be worth putting major scientific efforts, well, that's exactly what Mikhail was asking you about. Yes, but if that doesn't exist yet, then it’s unclear what we are arguing about. Is there some other option where we could direct our efforts more meaningfully? No, I understand all that , yes. Well, I believe that, in my opinion, the fact that so much money has been dumped into these "Origin of Life Research" experiments, where there’s still absolutely nothing to show for it—that is exactly...Right? Meaning, if the theory of intelligent design weren't subjected to outright religious persecution—I can't call it anything else—because, well, when a person who asks questions receives the "Vral"(liar) award instead of answers to their questions...and that’s fine if it’s someone in a different field who won't suffer for it, but in the field itself, people are simply afraid to put their names to it when they doubt the theory, well, let's say, the materialistic theory of evolution. I will be careful, because no one doubts that evolution has taken place. Such people don't exist. Well, I mean, that is true. And what could I do to also get the "Academic Vral" award? Well, I don't know. It's just that there is this film. An interesting question. Well, that is an interesting question. I think that if you talk to a chemist and at the end say, "Yes, you've convinced me, nothing adds up there," then you'll get it. But the point is precisely that the scientific community surrounding the theory of evolution and abiogenesis, let's say, is currently being censored. I mean, people who express a clear view—well, except for Michael Behe, who managed to hold on because he’s so cool and cheerful and has nine kids—but in general, which country are you talking about? Because from country to country, scientific policy is, to put it mildly, very different. Yes, yes, yes. Well, I What do the scientific policies of the USA, China, and Russia have in common? Do the USA, China, and Russia have the same policy regarding scientific research censorship? Seriously? Censorship? No, I never claimed that. So, for censorship, let’s take what’s called the civilized world. It certainly has censorship that, well, gets things like intelligent design into trouble. Well, if you disagree, then I’m not prepared to, uh, how should I say, I won't insist. It’s just that there are scientific journals created and published by proponents of Intelligent Design, and no one bans them or puts them in jail. But nothing of that sort is accepted into serious journals. It’s not accepted in Nature or Science. Do you know how many perfectly good scientific papers aren't accepted by Nature or Science? Fine. Have you heard that it’s incredibly difficult to get legitimate science into top-tier journals? Yes, I understand. I, myself, have more or less worked in that field. Now, excuse me, there’s the internet; you have the option to post your scientific paper, if a journal doesn’t take it, on an open-access preprint server. There are people who do that. There are plenty of stories about people doing good science who got rejected by 10 or 15 journals in a row. And they had to show a lot of persistence, so do I understand correctly that you—let's put it this way, I'm not—it would be good to highlight the points of contention. Well, we’ve outlined the point of contention regarding biogenesis. Uh, the next point of contention. Do I understand correctly that you disagree with me that there is censorship in the scientific world, essentially persecuting people who declare their understanding that abiogenesis is impossible? In general, and that evolution itself, in the materialistic sense, is also impossible. One must either admit— As far as I know, such censorship might exist in the US within individual universities, as part of a specific university's policy. Because in the US, first of all, it is strongly linked to religion. Secondly, in the US, religion plays a large role in society, much more than in Western Europe, and much more than in Russia. Uh, in general, it turns out that for them, it's specifically tied to issues of power and money. Therefore, uh, in the US, such censorship can certainly exist. Well, I wouldn't agree regarding other countries. Well, excuse me, in Russia you can definitely start your own scientific journal and publish whatever you want there. Let's not talk about Russia. Right, that’s clear. Uh, I’ve heard you, thank you. Understood. Well, it’s very interesting to hear the comments. It’s also interesting to see. May I ask Mikhail Alexandrovich a question while we haven't strayed too far from this topic? What is your personal attitude toward these kinds of views on the origin of life? Uh, I mean , do you personally think it should be scientifically censored, or would you be in favor of such research being conducted? It would be interesting to know. Well, I think it’s interesting. Listen, if work in the field of intelligent design were done—if it were all done by people like Alexey, I would only welcome it. That is, if they were consistent in their logic and careful with their methods. But alright, unfortunately, not everyone is that careful and consistent. Fair enough, fair enough. I certainly wouldn't censor it. Censorship in science, in my opinion, is generally a very bad idea, unless we are talking about strictly applied science. That is, uh, well, let's say, blueprints for a nuclear warhead probably should be censored, or technologies for creating some dangerous viruses probably should be censored. But fundamental science without such immediate, obviously dangerous applications, I wouldn't censor. Understood, agreed. Alright. Now, I just want to—before we move on to proteins—give a reference, well, not exactly a link, I won't give one right now, but you can easily find a film on the internet called*Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed*, a bit of a play on words. That is, uh, intelligence— it means both intelligent design and intellect. The ability to infer, well, you know, to construct logical arguments, and so on. It should be easy to find, right? By the way, it's the perfect time to invite all our subscribers and viewers to head over to the Cognitive Oversight Telegram channel after the stream, where there will be links from both participants that these esteemed gentlemen will present to you. There will be a long list of what Mikhail and Alexey recommend checking out; I think that would be the right thing to do. And there will also be a poll there. So your opinion will also be taken into account, dear viewers—who, in your point of view, ultimately wins? If it's your opinion, friendship—so far, I think, when it comes to opinions, I always lose. That's perfectly clear. It doesn't bother me at all. Let's move on . Listen, the question, in my opinion, is a rather stupid idea. I didn't see any point in it. Agreed. Yes. Yes. Perhaps, if you wanted to ask me about religion, I believe that Panchin and Sokolov’s crusade against religion is a great folly, that they shouldn't be doing that, and that religion doesn't hinder scientists. I am fully aware that scientists with religious views exist. And, for instance, there are quite a few among theoretical physicists. I've talked to some of them about this. They told me that religiosity helps them maintain hope. The fact that there is order in the world, that this order can be known , and it helps them—well, it motivates their scientific work, rather than hindering it. But there is also the Big Bang, which is simply "in the beginning was the word," light, and so on. It's just the only way it could be. But in science, it’s an inexplicable thing. So for them, it's much more obvious. With us, it’s here—one has to prove things like abiogenesis and argue about it. But there, there's nothing to argue about. They all acknowledge that it's inexplicable. Well, all right. Now, next, about proteins. Mikhail Alexandrovich, I have a second point I also want to clarify. So, scientists against myths. Scientist against myths. Looking at the phosphorescent protein, that beautiful, tree-like fluorescent one. Yes. Yes, yes. And you say, "How to answer an evolution denier." Well, I also don't really like that wording, because you don't need to answer an evolution denier, but rather someone who doubts its materialistic mechanisms. Because, after all, once again, an evolution denier—I don't know, I've never seen one; they don't exist. Wherever I go with creationists, they say: "Well, of course, the bones are lying right there , obviously." It’s clear that evolution happened, but the mechanism is, you know, just... Alexey, I have met living young-earth creationists who deny evolution. A rare beast, but they exist, they do. Well, fine, but that’s still like denying. It’s like a car driving by, and denying that it’s moving. It’s clear that there is intra-species variability. It’s right there on the surface. There’s a big confusion in terminology here that actually needs to be cleared up. I mean, it's clear that evolutionary biology studies immediate evolutionary processes, confirmed hundreds of times all around us, and everyone sees them. There it is. But on the other hand, when it comes to the evolution where new species or new genes are born, well, I’m still, let's say, getting into the subject, but the more I enter fitness landscapes , the more amazed I become, and everything gets curiouser and curiouser . I’m actually ready to argue, jokingly, that in 10-15 years there will be gaping holes there just like in abiogenesis. So, accumulating data on these landscapes will, conversely, lead to the full realization that without initial information about how the genome should change, none of it works due to those same probabilities that are near zero at every step. But indeed , at the moment, so little has been studied here. I’ve been involved in this for about a year or so. So little is understood that, truly, there isn't even a solid grasp yet that there must be jumps which are impossible. But nevertheless, in this video you clearly state at the beginning, you say: "All combinations, of course, cannot be gone through." And that is completely reasonable. There is actually a verbal error there, but I won't pay attention to it. Any of our listeners who understands even a little bit about fractions will see it immediately. But the point is that if there are 240 amino acids, that's 20 to the power of 240. That, of course, is a completely unimaginable number. But then you say that the numerator is large. And you calculate this numerator. I took a pen and calculated it, as someone who knows combinatorics, I calculated it quickly. And you say there are so many of them, like 10 to the 30th, well, roughly speaking, some number that makes it quite possible, that it is a very low estimate. Uh. A very significant underestimation. I will comment on that now. I will comment on that now. So, and then you say that since there are so many of them, one can accidentally land on them . But the thing is, if we are talking about a random hit, and the video is presented in exactly that light—if it were presented differently, saying we don't know the mechanisms, there’s no randomness there, that would be another matter. But the video is clearly aimed at those, well, it is aimed at the approach that nature couldn't have gone through it all, but look at how big the numerator is. Well, I assure you that this numerator, after dividing by the denominator, gives a fraction essentially equal to zero. It’s still , if not 10 to the -240, then 10 to the -200. And even if you take—I calculated this by hand—even if you assume there are points where some proteins could be half-changed, you get 10 to the -80, and using Stirling's formula, it’s all still zero. Zero, and there’s no getting around it. And as a result, what happens? It's not just me who looked at the math; my teacher looked at it, I showed it to many others, and another friend checked it too. They are simply stunned. They see a video where an educator says: "I can tell an evolution denier the following: the numerator is a huge number." He says: "Goodness, but you forgot to divide by the denominator." After dividing, you get zero. So, nature certainly couldn't have gotten there anyway. And what answer do you have for the evolution denier now? But in the comments, there's complete silence. Not a single person noticed it . That’s just to show you what kind of crowd listens to popular science lectures on biology. This should actually make us cautious. And these people call me all sorts of names, but they don't know how to grasp large numbers. Well, here is my second question for you. Look, you are asking a great question, truly a great one. It's cool that you asked it. The space of possible, potentially possible protein sequences is indeed monstrously huge. Moreover, there are scientific papers on big data with proteins from thousands of sequenced genomes showing that life hasn't even explored a noticeable fraction of that space. And the paper titles often just state that the protein universe continues to expand. Meaning life continues to expand within this space. But the question is, is there a way to find, in a reasonable amount of time, a functional protein sequence that will do something useful, which would be supported by natural selection? So, on one hand, we know that the space of protein sequences is huge. And if so , there, it comes out to about 10 to the power of 120, right? Actually, even more. If it's more, if it's that protein length of 240 then it's 240, so about 10 to the 320th power. Well yes, brute force won't work, of course, but that just means we need to find other ways that don't involve brute force. And here, you shouldn't ask mathematicians, but chemists who study proteins. There are many of them. So, knowing protein chemistry, what can be said about this? as well as bioinformatics. That it is difficult to estimate the density of functional sequences in this protein space. This requires very, very massive experiments testing millions, billions, and ideally trillions of proteins. Of course, this work with GFP, where less than 100,000 were tested, is a step forward, but it is certainly not enough. But most importantly, new proteins usually do not emerge from scratch. The main way new proteins emerge is through the gene duplication of already existing proteins. The second copy, the new gene , is released from the pressure of stabilizing selection because one copy is already performing the original function and can acquire a new one. That is, we start the search not from a random point in sequence space, but from an existing protein already performing some other function. Why does this significantly shorten the search? Because a functional protein, most likely, has an ordered structure of alpha-helices and beta-sheets. And there are also chemical studies on the synthesis of random, well, semi-random protein-coding sequences with certain constraints, where, for example, And what does "most likely" mean? Most likely. You said "most likely." Does that mean it hasn't been proven in science yet, or what? That there is a structure? An ordered structure. This " most likely," what does "most likely" mean? For the majority of functional proteins , they have some kind of stable three-dimensional structure. The search for this structure is called folding. But there are also so-called intrinsically disordered proteins. Unstructured proteins that perform their function without having a stable, ordered structure. Well, the simplest example of such disordered proteins is mucin, a saliva protein that, in negligible percentages, turns water into a viscous mucous solution. An ordered three-dimensional structure, an ordered globule. It absolutely does not need to form that for this purpose. Proteins without an ordered three-dimensional structure exist; there are fewer of them than ordered ones, but there are enough that I cannot ignore them now. Well, there are more ordered proteins. And what is important here? If you create libraries of proteins with a randomized sequence, but in such a way that they maintain a three-dimensional structure, then in a space of protein sequences restricted in this way, functional proteins are found very often. So, people created a library of 10,000 randomized proteins, such that they had a compact, ordered structure, four alpha-helices in a bundle, and showed that 30%of them have measurable enzymatic activity. They measured oxygenase, lipase, and something else. A total of three variants of enzymatic activities. That is, if a protein has a stable three-dimensional structure, then it will have some function with a fairly noticeable probability. And if we start with one protein that has an ordered structure, then moving from it to another protein, also with an ordered structure, is much faster and easier than engaging in a completely random search in the space of protein sequences. This is the main mechanism for creating new proteins. It is not the only one; there are others. Fundamentally new proteins that have arisen through a truly random search, or something close to it, do exist, but there are not many of them. And they are, as a rule, all small. They are not 240 amino acids; they are less than 100 , and more often even less than 50. And their functions are quite, well, mostly regulatory or defensive. So, the formation of proteins entirely from scratch does happen, but it’s not the most frequent event. Proteins are much more often derived from already existing proteins. Either by changing the function of a protein copy, or by combining pieces of different proteins, which is called domain shuffling. In other words, evolution has ways to radically speed up the search within the space of protein sequences. Alright , then I have the following question. One that is not random. If I were to watch that video, it would certainly give me food for thought; I would naturally run to my chemist colleagues who are generally skeptical about a materialistic explanation of the universe, simply because they see top-down causation in many places. But most importantly, there wouldn’t be a direct contradiction with common sense here. But any mathematician who watches that video—the "Scientists Against Myths" one that I sent you—they see what is being proposed to be iterated, and then it is said that the numerator of the fraction is large. And, well, everyone forgot about the denominator, but we see that the result of the question was slightly different from what I was answering in that video. The question there was that mutations can only break everything. I show them, I answer them, that there are 10 to the power of 30 ways to make a mutation without breaking anything. No, no, but it is specifically described—I can turn it on right now —how it was impossible to iterate through that many. And so, let’s look at how many functional ones there are. And there are tons of them. Well, in short, I don't know, no mathematician would remain indifferent here, as they say. This looks like complete nonsense, like a person who, instead of calculating the fraction, just computed its numerator. But really, maybe there was some need to satisfy all segments of the audience with a single video. And specifically there, yes, I wasn't counting on mathematicians, indeed. So, ideally, it certainly should have been added that the evolutionary search, as it happens in nature for new protein sequences, is not a random search. It is a search that already begins with some other functional protein. Is there an understanding? If I understand...well, okay, yes, at least I heard the explanation, and I have accepted it as it is in any case. I understood what was meant, but I will repeat once again that it is completely —just from listening to the video, it is confusing. That is, it is very confusing when a person thinks about a fraction, wants to calculate it, and it turns out like this. So, biologists claim that no one is sorting through anything here. Something else is happening here according to different laws, where a portion of the sequences turn out to be so much more probable, so much more probable, that this whole huge machine of a completely empty fitness landscape is bypassed. But this hasn't been absolutely proven yet, right, and the mechanisms are unclear. So these are all just hypotheses, too. What is the status? Well, these are working hypotheses that are currently being tested. The paper I cited there about the green fluorescent protein is precisely one of the studies aimed at determining the large-scale characteristics of the protein fitness landscape. Got it. Alright. I predict in this regard that in 10 years, questions will arise here as well that will have no solution and will lead to a combinatorial dead end. Well, personally, you have fully answered my questions. Thank you very much. If you have any for me, go ahead. Yes. No, well, we can chat as long as you like. I’ll take notes and ask more questions, but that’s for another time; for now, I’m ready to answer. But it seems to me that we’ve talked now, and it’s important to understand that if you type something about me, it says "Asovatiev is a flat-earther"— something like that comes up immediately, and people write: "Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, he was also awarded a 'Liar' prize, just like the flat-earthers." I think that’s not very right or fair, but on the other hand, why should I defend myself? Let others defend me. So I am ready to listen to your questions. Well, I don't really have any prepared questions for you, other than the one I asked at the beginning about the research program following from the Intelligence hypothesis. I've taken it under consideration. I’m not promising any deadlines, but I will do it. Yes. Uh-huh. Yeah. Accordingly, regarding the RNA world, I have something to say. It’s roughly in the same vein as the green fluorescent protein, about the dimensionality of sequence space, that is, experiments with artificial selection of ribozymes, SELEX, have shown that ribozymes with low but measurable RNA-copying activity do exist and can be found on the scale of a laboratory experiment. What does this say about the occurrence of such ribozymes in the possible sequence space? Well, the length of such ribozymes is, say, 200 nucleotides. So we have 4 to the power of 200 variants, which is about 10 to the power of 120, if my calculations are correct. There. More or less, in one experiment, in one round of SELEX, scientists test—well, I'll be generous—1 gram of RNA with random sequences. 1 gram is 6 times 10 to the 23rd, Avogadro's number of atomic mass units. How many RNA molecules is that? One nucleotide is about 300 atomic mass units. If there are two-hundred-nucleotide RNA molecules, that means 60,000 atomic mass units each, 6 times 10 to the 4th. That is, 1 gram of RNA 200 nucleotides long can contain 10 to the 19th different sequence variants. Avogadro's number divided by 6 times 10 to the 4th . And experiments of this type that have been conducted are, well, definitely fewer than a million, fewer than 10 to the 6th. That is, the explored space of RNA sequences is less than 10 to the 25th variants. And among these 10 to the 25th variants, clearly more than one was found with measurable ribozyme activity. Given that the total dimension of this space is 10 to the 120th, and we have explored 10 to the 25th and already found something, this means that potential ribozymes with the activity to copy something will be, well, 10 to the 120th divided by 10 to the 25th. It seems it comes out to 10 to the 95th. No, this part is all clear. This is where chemists disagree. Here chemists say that this has nothing to do with life. All these reactions will die immediately when the thermodynamic potential drops, and that's it. So the point here is not the numbers. We are currently discussing the RNA world, that, well, that chemical reactions always move toward a decrease in this potential. And if that is not the case, this means that the system must be open and new reagents must enter it. All the time. No, they don't, no, no, there are, there are still, there are things, there are obstacles of a more fundamental nature. And in this regard, we are now discussing the moment of transition from the RNA world to the protein world again. That is, chemists never doubted that some compounds like this Q-45 and so on exist. They just, when this experiment happened, my whole circle, with whom I've been talking for 2 years (well, with some for a year, with some for 2 years), they just scoffed and said: "Well yeah, sure, it's a cool experiment in principle, but it doesn't change anything." Why does Markov write such things, right, and mislead everyone? Why? Why do that? And the point is precisely that there is no transition further to the ribosome, or to the cell, even less so. And this is, as it were, physically impossible. James says the same thing. You are cutting out. Ah, apparently, you have. Ah, oh dear, I can hear both participants perfectly. It's fine now. It's fine now. Aha. There. So here, uh, so to speak, we can discuss, uh, how to put it, we are still living in an RNA world, which is denied. And, and Konin himself also refers to it. Every ribosome is a functioning ribozyme. We live thanks to functioning ribozymes. No, well, the transition, nevertheless, to the world—there is still the question of the transition to a protein world, which just seems completely normal to you, while very many people absolutely reject it, saying that... the framing of the question is normal, but the experiments are too difficult to set up here. It is much harder to set up these experiments than to obtain one ribozyme using SELEX. Therefore, they simply won't give enough money here to conduct a meaningful experiment. The trouble is mainly in this. Well, yes. Well, to me, this means we should pause your discussion. First of all, I will suggest that our viewers leave their questions, since it is obviously time to move on to the next stage. Uh, yes, from the RNA world to the protein world, yes, from the world of your discussion with each other to the world of questions from our viewers . And I ask everyone to please specify who the question is for, and it would be great if these questions were in equal proportion, because... the first to ask, if there are questions, should be Mikhail Alexandrovich. Well, that is, if he has such questions . Yes. Well, Mikhail Alexandrovich, I understand that Mikhail Alexandrovich has no prepared questions for you. If he does have them, then, of course, Mikhail Alexandrovich has the first word here, without any doubt. But I would like to remind you of the question I asked you...I would—before this, I would really like to understand your objective: because do you want money, for example, to be spent more efficiently, or simply that the attitude toward proponents of intelligent design stop being, uh, that they stop being marginalized? Or what is your main task in participating in this discussion at all? First, you know , I am absolutely convinced, and I have experienced this firsthand, of the serious ideological, so to speak, " cluttering" of this very important scientific topic. I want to clear out this clutter and I am ready to throw myself on the grenade, which I have been doing for a year or a year and a half now. That’s the first thing. Second. And I want, well, the zero point, zero point I want to understand what is happening there. This is my personal task. I want to understand at what stage the understanding is of how we are all sitting here, where we originated from, and so on. And this, for me, is actually the primary goal, it is the zero-level goal. First, as I said, my second task, Vadim, is to ensure the public doesn't receive distorted information, that posts like Alexander Vladimirovich Markov's don't appear, or at least if they do, everyone knows it's Markov. He is a great enthusiast; he has this belief that Q-45 has been invented and everything is already done. Yeah. Because a friend of mine, by the way, a religious man from our city, Smolensk, sends me this and writes: "See, Alexey, they've already solved everything in abiogenesis. See what Markov writes? Everything is done, everything, all the problems are cleared." I want this to stop happening, for the public to understand that none of this exists. And for that, the state of science in this field must be conveyed to the public correctly. And when reporters or others engage in such cheap PR, scientists should slap their wrists and cool their ardor. That's what I want. I want a normal scientific discussion to prevail here, so that a second alternative point of view isn't ridiculed, so that awards—like those anti-awards—aren't handed out, and that this whole scene doesn't shadow this fascinating scientific field. I'm finished. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, in the American scientific system, scientists are forced not to argue with these science journalists, but rather to fuel the hype themselves because it's necessary for them to secure funding. And what is called "scientific integrity" in English certainly suffers because of this; unfortunately, our need for honesty suffers. Well, there you have it. And in medical science, there have been scandals, for example, with the falsification of research on Alzheimer's disease. And further away from biology, for example, Avi Loeb with his search for remnants of interstellar asteroids, he, well...if it wasn't a deliberate forgery, it was very close to it. But unfortunately, as long as America remains a prominent scientific power, these American problems affect scientists all over the world, and to solve them, they would have to change their entire system. Is that clear? Well, then I'll limit myself to Russia for now. But, however, I still think that we must have the goal of restoring purity and honesty to science and competition. Specifically in this regard, you will have a great many allies for scientific honesty. A great many people are ready to sign on. Well, wonderful. Then I have answered completely. Yes. Mikhail Alexandrovich, do you share the opinion that in this very sphere, in the field related to abiogenesis and evolution, we are quite right to separate these topics? It is emphasized here, but nevertheless, we touched upon some issues in both areas today. And do you think that in these areas there is an excessive amount of distortions, journalistic exaggerations, and all sorts of hoaxes, more than usual, or not? Just like in other areas of science, about the same. I would say about the same, because there is quite little money in this field compared to all applied research, even if only medical. Well, about medicine, for Origin of Life Research, they give little money compared to applied fields, very little. Therefore, people in Origin of Life Research have to improvise by finding applied uses. For example, RNA aptamers grew out of the SELEX technique, which find some use in diagnostics and biosensors. Take the story of peptide nucleic acids, which began in Origin of Life and found use in therapeutic RNA and so on, but there is little money in Origin of Life Research. It is not a very well-funded field. That is, the amount of dishonesty there may be spurred by the fact that this field of research most often provokes ideological disputes, because it most clearly contradicts religious teachings. And again, in America, there are more people for whom this is important. Right. But compared to what happens, uh, in the division of large funding, there is very little of this in Origin of Life. And what do you mean by "contradicts"? I actually haven't seen it contradict anything. I am just interested in understanding the essence, not based on the texts. I do not see a contradiction with our texts. Well, I understand that all religious texts are metaphorical appeals from great people to the population. Of course, they are not obliged to be saturated with precise scientific terminology. It’s not very clear that you understand this, but not all readers of these very religious texts agree with you. Well, I mean, there were monkey trials in the US. Well, maybe I'm just not aware. Okay, I see. Well, that was about 100 years ago, but those were attempts to ban the teaching of Darwin's theory by court order. By court order. Well, and in 2005, they, on a completely meaningless pretext, conversely banned intelligent design, explaining that the dice had just fallen as they had. But it's just a farce, this Kitzmiller trial, it's a real farce. They weren't making arguments like you're saying, that you believe, say, in what will be invented, that this transition will be built and the transition from RNA did happen. That's not what they were saying. They were simply saying that it's pointless to calculate probabilities when the dice have already been cast. It’s just embarrassing. How could this even happen? I mean, the pendulum has clearly swung in the opposite direction now, and very sharply. Well, in my opinion, at least. I get the feeling that in our discussion, or rather, in your discussion, now that Mikhail Alexandrovich—sorry, a few...Yes, Mikhail Alexandrovich, please go ahead. In America, it also depends heavily from state to state. There are much more and much less religious states. I see. That's how it is. It seems you wanted to read the listeners 'questions to us. Yes. Yes. I wanted to move on to that, yes, and before that, say that I get the impression that in the discussion, two slightly different terms are being merged together. Religious faith and a certain scientific confidence, based on available premises—which may be insufficient for a definitive statement , yet still suggesting one of the possibilities as the most likely. Still , it seems to me there is a significant difference between such confidence and religious faith. The thing is, there are several things that are constantly being muddled around abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. For example, I have repeatedly, well, for example, I am citing Maxim Vinarsky there. In general, I really like his videos, and the way he honestly acknowledges the problems of macroevolution, I like that too. Actually, the fact that he himself just uses the term "macroevolution" I also really like, because he, as it were, separates that question from what is happening right before our eyes. Oh, where did everyone go? Is everyone here ? No. Ah, it’s okay, it’s okay. Aha . Something happened where I was put on full screen, and it startled me. There. And he says, "How, how can one doubt evolution?" He says, the theory of evolution, after the COVID virus, which evolved right before our eyes. So, it's like mixing up what we haven't observed with questions about how it all happened: the formation of species 500 million years ago, as I understand it, there are still a lot, let's say, yes, let's put it this way, there are many open questions and many difficulties, like what the Cambrian explosion is, and so on. But that’s for another time and place. But the point is that we are always asked not to doubt the theory of evolution because we see microevolution right here. This is, in my view, the first, well, an outright substitution. The second substitution is when they say that people who observe that this wonderful, most complex structure called a cell could not have emerged on its own through certain laws. And, accordingly, we see here either a plan or some initial informational data of the universe, which is not very distinguishable from a Creator and a design. But this is mixed up with religious concepts. They say: "Oh, really, so there is a creator, but what does this creator look like, and who created your god? And why did he make everything so ass-backward?" And so on. So, this is the second conflation, which, well, it really surprises me; why do that? These are completely, well , different things. If, say, we are convinced that it could not have emerged on its own, how does the fact that we don't understand anything about a Creator incline us to continue denying the obvious, that this structure could not have emerged? Well, let's assume we are convinced of this, right? This philosophical snag, the third philosophical snag in evolutionary theory, arises when it comes to whether it was created or left to chance, right? That is, well, the degree of scientists' interference in the process. And, roughly speaking, if they make a cell tomorrow, if they make a cell. I would bet my life that all the newspapers will claim that everything is proven, that it's all clear how the cell emerged, even though they made it—and the keyword here is "made," right? So, that is the third one. Well, Craig Venter once claimed at some point that he made a cell, and the papers claimed, yes, that he had, but that was, of course, incorrect. I mean, yes, he just shoved the DNA from one species of mycoplasma into the cell of another mycoplasma species. Yes. That is not—this points to the fact that there are many, many points here that are not explained to the general public, which is a great shame. Well, if we are counting on an intelligent audience, we should explain all this, in my view, at least. So, let's move on to the questions from this very intelligent audience. A question is sent to Alexei Savvateev: " What mathematical premises for the existence of a Creator...do you see?" It specifically emphasizes the transition from the existence of a true but unprovable statement, in parentheses Gödel's theorem, to: "Our universe has a creator." Honestly, I don't understand the question. Is this a question about the further mention of Gödel? Yes, you are referring to the fact that Gödel's theorem says nothing directly about the existence of a Creator. How do you go from the statements that follow from it to the conviction that the world was created by a reasonable creator—that's where the difficulty lies. Regarding Gödel's theorems, my teacher Shen categorically says: "Do not use it in theological disputes, neither for nor against, ever.""It's just a mathematical result." But if you ask me personally, for me, it's a personal testimony. But it is not something I can pass on to another. For Wasserman, for example, it is evidence of the absence of God. So, there is no answer here. Thank you. Right, okay. Alexey, oh God, I apologize, Mikhail Nikhin is receiving quite a lot of questions, but they Yes, quite a lot of questions, it seems to me, do not relate to the topic of the discussion, because they concern relationships with other representatives of popular science. But here is one I found: how is evolution supposed to work at the level of one or two nucleotides if nature does not yet have a mechanism for recording combinations? Ah, I see. How should the theory of evolution work at the level of one or two nucleotides? The question presumably implies how evolution should work when there are no long nucleotide chains yet, when there are no polynucleotide molecules, when only mono-, di-, and trinucleotides exist. I understood the question this way and will answer it accordingly. You, you, you—or rather, yes, it can be understood here. I honestly don't understand what is meant. If that's what was meant—how biological evolution worked at the level of mono- and dinucleotides—most likely, it didn't work at all at this level. Most likely, chemistry was at work at this level. In order for some replication to start, according to modern estimates obtained from attempts at ribozyme selection via SELEX, a chain of at least 50 nucleotides is needed, preferably 100 or 200. If there are two or three, there will be no replication yet. Uh-huh. Alexey Vladimirovich, I ask the broadcast director to put Alexey Vladimirovich on screen for us. The next question is for you. In the world there are thou—Yes, in the world there are thousands of religions. How do you calculate the probability that yours is the correct one? This is probably the same person asking the question. People have such a strange—other one. No, another one, yes. Well, this is also—by the way, this is the fourth thing that seems strange to me about this topic—that people try to bring mathematics into religion, but it's just so insane, it's meaningless. Religion simply answers the question of what will happen to our immortal soul after life leaves our body. That's it, it answers exactly that question. And it is intended to answer it. It simply exists for that purpose. It says, well, some religions say one thing, others say another. But it's about, in general terms, how you should live morally and how your consciousness should behave now, while you control it, to get something reasonable when you no longer control your consciousness. Period. What does science have to do with it? An excellent answer. I had an acquaintance who tried to derive an equation for karmadynamics. He was, yes , really into Hinduism, but nothing good came of it. Well, if one could find that somewhere, it would probably be curious. Alexey Vladimirovich, to, so to speak, rehabilitate yourself after the previous question. Uh, here is one that I think is more interesting. If you believe that life is complex, too complex to explain, and that to explain it you need an architect, then—that sounds like a clumsy phrasing, I'm trying to rephrase it on the fly. After all, the architect must be even more complex, right? But the architect must be even more complex. Isn't there a contradiction here? No. And why should there be? Who promised anyone that the architect would be simple? Explain. No, no one promised. But if the very premise for explaining complex life through the architect hypothesis is that it is too complex, then isn't there, in fact, an even greater complication of the whole issue by introducing yet another additional entity? And no one promised that there would be any kind of solution. It's just that if you see a cell, well, I don't know, again, I've been scolded many times here for referencing things without quoting. Well, guys, it's related to the problem I'm struggling with. These people don't want their names appearing on air. They don't want to. I won't even mention the position held by the person who said this. He certainly doesn't want his last name appearing on air. He says: " The fact that the cell could appear, see..." Well yes, that's obvious. This, well, it doesn't raise any doubts. But we know nothing, of course, about the author of this great action, and we don't know and cannot know. "Well, and again, to attribute to him. There. And, by the way, Mikhail Alexandrovich, you said that you In some interview you said, and I’ve looked into it a bit, that your gripe with the intelligent design model is that the design is essentially botched or roundabout. Yes. But the thing is, if an engineer were at work—well, this is exactly the question of evolution, which no one denies. It’s actually simpler to create all these wonderful species through evolution. I mean, evolutionarily, it would be like, say, a block of code. You’ve executed a block of code. Now you need to write a program that would take 100 characters from scratch, but only 30 with this block—except the block is already 3,000 characters long. That’s all there is to it. Exactly. There, I’m giving you the answer to your question about the giraffe and its nerve. So, in a way, I’m just tossing your own evolution argument right back at you. Well, it’s very good that you acknowledge that biological evolution exists. Yes. Well, yes, the remains are just lying there that way, after all. Who would deny that? The question is about the material mechanisms. You’re only bringing in an architect to kick off biological evolution. Yes, did I understand that correctly? No. No , I don’t think that would be possible. Actually, I don’t know anything for sure at the moment, but I think we will see that proteins simply cannot form without that kind of careful, precise construction. I’ll say it again, this is my hypothesis— I’m not asserting anything as a fact right now. I think in 10 years— we’ll meet here in 10 years and compare notes. Yes. What I mean is that no one denies evolution as a process. The bones are laid out that way, everything in the world is, right? But the mechanisms— can we really explain everything materialistically, using bottom-up logic, without top-down causality? That’s where there are very serious problems and doubts. And, of course, you know better than I do where things are still unexplained and unclear. So, I mean, the Creator might not have just started the process; perhaps some subsequent things were also linked to His involvement. Uh-huh. Top-down causality still runs into Occam’s razor, though. But if we can’t explain it any other way, how does it run into it? Well, if — What kind of explanation is that, if we don’t know anything about the Creator ? If we bring in a new entity that we know nothing about and can’t learn anything about, what the hell kind of explanation is that? Well, look, this excuse is like bringing up the multiverse. It’s just as meaningless. No, well, the point here isn't really about what’s meaningful or not. The point is to acknowledge that we’ve reached a dead end with material explanations. This is where, by the way , we need philosophy. This is where one could bring in with known material explanations, with known ones, it seems to me, we definitely know all possible material explanations. Well, at this point, yes, we return to the situation you mentioned yourself, like waiting 100 years. So, unfortunately, we won’t solve anything here right now, because you yourself decided to admit that falsifiability is impossible at the moment. Well, it’s like it will never be achieved. Therefore, we are effectively talking about an unfalsifiable theory after all. And in this situation, it seems to me that it’s no better than just honestly saying that a creator existed, but we know nothing about him. Well, like that . Well, roughly speaking, like that, yes. Occam's razor is meant for when a person, I don't know, has a straight road and should just follow it, right? But they say," No, I'd rather do it this way "—that’s when it should be applied. And in general, the question is actually very interesting. What if the road is winding, blocked by logs and stones, and you suggest a person should just flap their arms and fly over the road? Well, downward causation is like saying," Go ahead and fly. "No, actually, they could bring in a bulldozer and clear the road. Understood, understood. Yes, but if, so to speak, at some point it becomes clear that it can no longer be cleared, then the next question is: did anyone guarantee—and I'm coming to a philosophical question now—that we can theoretically get all the explanations for what we see? I mean, of course, no one guaranteed it. Specifically for those people who go into science, specifically for those people who do science, since they do it , it means they believe it's knowable, or at least they enjoy the process of discovery. It’s the second one. It’s the second one. True. But at the same time, it is by no means guaranteed. For me, for example, it is perfectly clear that this world is ultimately unknowable. There are even quite clear boundaries. As a mathematician, I know where they lie. They lie in differential equations . Is this theory about that or not? Well, that too, but Gödel's theorem says that, well, you have to formulate it precisely. In any first-order theory , there are statements that are true but unprovable within it. That's it. Period. But that is, for it to be in Russian, in Russian there can be a situation of a theorem that is true but unprovable. But that's not all. There are also nonlinear differential equations which, with the slightest change in initial data, immediately oscillate beyond recognition after some time. And therefore, a forecast is impossible. And for me, if you want to know my personal opinion, for me this also testifies to a Creator. But, of course, this is already a personal religious experience. That I cannot somehow pass on to others. This is my understanding of differential equations . Yes. Yes. That just a little change in the initial data shakes everything up. Well, the fact that you can't predict the weather, for example, for more than 6 days. That's what chaos theory is trying to study, right? Well yes, yes, let's assume so. Well yes, in particular, there are unknowable sections, and they will not be known even in mathematics. We have long come to terms with this. And therefore, for me, it is perfectly normal that science will not know everything. And it is normal for me, having agreed that there was a creator here, to continue perfectly well studying in other places and conducting interesting experiments. And that is why this connection for me—that if there is a creator, it means we give up —does not work. There. And, uh, well, yes, like that. And in principle, it seems to me that as far as human consciousness is concerned, absolutely nothing is understood here, and everyone admits it. And here, kind of, well, yes, in this place, I think it is worth saying honestly that science is a very interesting, beautiful layer of knowledge, obtained by clear, well-defined methods, and which is very interesting to engage in. But I still wouldn't go as far as saying that science can theoretically explain everything. No, it can't. Most likely, it cannot. That's how it is. If I may, another question, this time for Mikhail Nikitin, since Alexey Vladimirovich has spoken many times about the marginalization of his views, which privately I will survive, but as it were that is clear. Nevertheless, anti-awards were mentioned, the Vral anti-award, yes, and people are interested in how you feel about such projects. Do you think that it brings more harm or benefit to the cause of enlightenment, to the cause of, say, the development of science? Uh, not necessarily the Vral anti-prize specifically, although it is probably the best known in the Russian-speaking environment, but in general, such anti-prizes and, perhaps, humorous, comical methods in opposing those whom, I don't know, conventional science does not accept. That's for Mikhail Alexandrovich, not for me. Right? Yes, this is a question for Mikhail Alexandrovich. If this is a question for me. Ah, yes, this is a question for you. How do you feel about it? Because Alexei Vladimirovich's opinion on this matter is well known. Well, by the way, it's not exactly, not exactly like that. I did say that, well , if they want to, let them play around . I mean, it's not like I’m strictly ...Yes, yes, yes, of course, of course. Well, look, over the past N years my opinion on the role of such prizes has changed. I mean, if, say, in 2016-17 I thought that this was clearly a good and necessary thing, now I have some doubts about it. Well, here, of course, one must ask its organizers whether there are any measurable parameters at all by which the effectiveness of such a thing can be tracked. But, I mean, when the Vral prize was received by people who were, forgive me, engaged in obvious medical fraud, there were such people there. It is good when this same Vral prize is given to some media personalities like Artemy Lebedev. I didn't understand what that was at all, why? What is the point of that? So, that is, but this means that the prize committee has degraded over these years, because they give it by committee, they decide everything by voting. They are democrats, there isn't some sort of. They decide by voting. The committee has degraded. Well, we, by the way, we saw this committee. I watched with pleasure how, uh, this wonderful academician, uh, doesn't know the basics, so to speak, of Orthodox dogmatics, or how that lady applies it. Well, true, you also used this argument , that the Creator made everything" through the wrong place, "to which we, of course, have an answer, but that's fine. No, I mean that, oh never mind, it doesn't matter why I, yes, in general, it seems that the committee has degraded. Perhaps, it's interesting , perhaps it has changed, perhaps external conditions have changed. And the" through the wrong place "thing , there are enough stories that in living organisms many things are arranged in a clearly non-optimal way. Understood. This is perfectly explainable within the framework of Darwinian evolution, because it was somehow, poorly or well, quickly adapted from an existing prior state. But our human anatomy, it is poorly adapted to bipedalism, crookedly and awkwardly. Because of this, we have problems with our spine, migraines, uh, difficult and dangerous childbirth, and many other problems. One of the more well-known non-human examples is the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve, which runs from the brain to the tongue , making a four-meter loop down to the heart and back, because the path of this nerve didn't originate in the giraffe, but in its fish-like ancestors who didn't have long necks and whose hearts were right next to their heads. And this loop wasn't complicated at all back then. But then the fish moved onto land. They lost their gills and grew necks. In the case of the giraffe, the neck grew longer, but the path of the nerve remained the same; it just became inefficient under the new conditions. In other words, well, these are our questions for the programmer, right? It’s the programmer. Why the hell haven't you refactored the code in 4 billion years? Where is the refactoring, damn it? Why have you accumulated so much technical debt? No, well, it was also said that you have an answer. What is your answer? Yes, that's what's called an answer. And for those of us, look, in dogmatics there is a fundamental point: the creator is unknowable. Neither his goals, nor his, you know, things. So that’s not the place. We are entering an area where there are no answers to any questions of this kind, right? I mean, if we either want to say that we see traces of, uh, intelligent design here, or, if you like, some other design, yes, a design. Like seeing traces of an external, an external architect. That’s it. If I say an external architect, these questions will disappear, right? Why? I mean, how so? Well, because an architect has the right to do whatever they want. They just do whatever they want. It’s just that when we say" intelligent design, "the word" intelligent "is, well, an adjective, right; it's intelligent from our point of view. But in reality, we don't have the right to extrapolate our point of view onto the Creator. That’s the thing. And that shifts our entire conversation into the realm of religion . This can be done, but those are completely different, as it were, different conditions. Well, I see. There you go. But for the religious, well, I, uh, this argument about the nerve—honestly, with those I’ve discussed it with within religious culture—it doesn't cause any...well, yeah, maybe it might for, like, young-earth creationists, right, uh, where everything must be read literally . Well, I don't know. Yes, yes, yes. Well , still, the majority of believers do not share that, you know, position. That’s how it is. Well then, since, uh We have been on the air for almost two hours now, and unfortunately, we have to start wrapping things up. Even though the discussion is certainly interesting and obviously not exhausted in two hours, to put it mildly, nevertheless. And I would suggest, if the participants have something to say as their, shall we say , final word or concluding remark, that would be wonderful. Uh, we started with Alexey Vladimirovich. It would probably be right to give the floor to Mikhail Alexandrovich first now. Uh-huh. Well, I am, in general, grateful to you for inviting me. This is an interesting format that rarely happens. I mean, much more often I either speak in front of an audience that, well, doesn't have a sufficient level to ask such questions as were asked today. Yes. And when there is an opponent, and they ask such serious-level questions, it allows you to reach something new and check yourself, to see if you haven't remained in delusions. It was a good, valuable experience. Thank you. Thank you so much for the kind words, Mikhail Alexandrovich. I am very glad to meet you, even if not in person yet, but through the screen. And, yes, I am also very grateful. Many things have become clear to me. Many things have become clear. Uh, and now I really want you to have a discussion with one of the chemists. I will try to find someone, well, I think I already convinced one person. Well, basically, I'm not making a deal with you yet, of course, but just saying Yes, that would be interesting for me too, of course. Great, then I, and it would be all the more interesting for me to provide the platform. I will do it with pleasure. I sincerely thank all today's participants. Yes, and I hope that we will manage to arrange a continuation of this discussion. I think it is not useless. And despite the fact that Mikhail Alexandrovich called this idea stupid, I will still suggest that our viewers go and subscribe to Cognitive Oversight on Telegram and participate in the poll , because the polls on our channel are not about who is substantively right, but who was convincing in terms of form . Here at Cognitive Oversight, people, of course, answer with bias. Alexey Vladimirovich, I completely agree with you. And nevertheless, the discussion that unfolds in the comments in connection with this, it seems to me , is not useless. There are interesting thoughts there, yes. Well, if you remember, for example, I did not agree that you were the winner in the debate with Alexander Palchin. It will unfold right after our discussion here concludes. So, once again, a huge thank you to all the participants. I think it went interestingly, very interestingly. I hope this isn't the last time we meet , with this or perhaps other lineups to discuss this topic. And I sincerely thank all the viewers as well. Until we meet again. All the best. Goodbye, everyone. Otkult for now, friends. I owe you links, I owe you a chemist, and in the distant future, a research program on intelligent design. Yes, a scientific, research one.