Can Meaning and Purpose Emerge From a Darwinian Process?

Andrew McDiarmid: Welcome to ID the Future. I’m your host, Andrew McDiarmid. Well, it’s quite common these days to hear biological systems being compared to machines to convey their complexity and their design. But some consider this an inadequate and even inappropriate metaphor. After all, if all life is the result of unguided evolutionary processes, then even things like meaning and purpose would also just be byproducts of a bottom up development. And so people have trouble with this metaphor. My guest today is Dr. Emily Reeves, a biochemist, metabolic nutritionist and aspiring systems biologist. Her doctoral studies were completed at Texas A and M University in biochemistry and biophysics. Emily is currently an active clinician for metabolic, nutrition and nutritional genomics at Nutraplexity. She’s also working with fellows of Discovery Institute and the greater scientific community to promote integration of engineering and biology. Emily, welcome back to the podcast.

[00:01:14] Dr. Emily Reeves: Thank you so much, Andrew. It’s great to be here again.

[00:01:18] Andrew McDiarmid: Yeah, yeah, it has been a while and it’s great to have your voice on the show. And we can see each other too, which is great.

Well, you recently wrote an article at our flagship news and commentary site, evolutionnews.org that piqued my interest. It’s called the End of the Machine Metaphor.

And in it you discuss some ideas put forward by science writer Philip ball in his 2023 book, How Life A User’s Guide to the New Biology. Ball suggests that using the metaphor of a machine to describe features of life at the cellular level is inadequate. He writes, comparing life to a machine, a robot or computer, sells it short.

Now, Ball is no advocate of intelligent design. He’s definitely coming at this from an evolutionary point of view. But I’m glad you decided to write about his views on this because it, it sort of presents a good opportunity to review our use of the machine metaphor and how it can help us understand and explain living systems as well as the limitations of the metaphor. So let’s jump into it now. Intelligent design scientists and scholars, ourselves, we ourselves are no strangers to using the machine analogy. I mean, the cell is a veritable factory of machine like biological structures. And some of them literally look like the machine parts humans can make. Like the bacterial flagellum with its rotary engine, its bushings, its bearings and its propeller like tail. In some ways it is a very fitting analogy because it conveys the complexity of an interconnected engineered system designed for a specific purpose. But it’s not a perfect analogy. You write that while it might oversimplify biology, it can also convey Critical concepts about the design nature of biology tell us about that.

[00:03:06] Dr. Emily Reeves: Sure.

So using machine metaphors for biology can help people connect, that these objects require the exact same type of foresight and understanding that it takes us to build human machines. And knowing what it takes to design something really helps us to do what we call design detection.

Now, basic design detection is inerrant. Like take William Paley’s famous example of finding a watch on a beach. How do you know it is designed by an agent rather than, you know, the smooth stone you find that’s the same size right next to it?

Everyone understands this basic design detection and can do it. But people that have more experience designing things, like engineers, have an increased, I would argue, appreciation and ability to do design detection. And this is because they know what it takes to build a switch. They know how hard it is to get a coherent system.

They know how hard it is to avoid noise in signaling. And they understand that you have to have a solid grasp of chemistry, math, and physics to understand and participate in complex system development. So when we use a machine metaphor, we help kind of bring this to the forefront of people’s minds.

[00:04:29] Andrew McDiarmid: Yeah, yeah. And that makes sense. Now, although the machine metaphor is quite popular these days, some have argued that machine terminology is inappropriate as our understanding of machines as designed objects could inadvertently support a design inference for biological systems. And that makes some people nervous. But Philip Ball isn’t making that argument, is he? Tell us why he cautions us in using it.

[00:04:53] Dr. Emily Reeves: Yeah, that’s right. So Philip Ball’s argument, at least from the outset, is a little different. He doesn’t seem to be worried about the machine metaphor supporting a design inference. Instead, he is actually worried that the machine metaphor doesn’t go far enough. And what he means by that is he doesn’t think it encompasses key aspects of life like meaning and purpose. And so because of this, he’s worried that if people use the machine metaphor, it could actually give people the wrong idea. And, and I’m not completely sure that I agree with this, because I think that even human designed objects do have purpose. For example, a cell phone has lots of purposes. And what gives objects their purpose is a human agent. So I’m not quite sure that it’s right to say that machines don’t have purpose. They don’t have free will, which is, you know, to choose to go against something, what they’re created to do, and they aren’t alive. But I think it is correct to say that machines are given purpose by their creators.

And then I would say you Know, the. The only inadequacy of using the machine metaphor in biology, which I think Philip Ball and I would agree on, is that biology is more exquisite than human engineering. But again, I think this is okay, you know, we can explain that that rotary motor in the flagella is actually harder to build and more exquisite than the outboard motor on grandpa’s boat.

[00:06:21] Andrew McDiarmid: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think you’re right that it is inadequate in many ways, but it’s sort of, you know what we have.

[00:06:31] Dr. Emily Reeves: Helpful. Yes.

[00:06:32] Andrew McDiarmid: To compare it. Yeah. Look what we’ve done. And we think it’s like this, but even better. Yeah, yeah. Well, rather than meaning and purpose coming first, Ball argues that meaning is generated from the bottom up in a Darwinian world. In chapter one of his book, he writes that making meaning is a great way of staying alive and propagating. So much so, indeed, that it’s probably the only way to be alive at all. Now, you unpack some of the flaws in this reasoning in your article. First, for meaning to be a successful strategy for survival and reproduction in a Darwinian process, what would it need to provide?

[00:07:10] Dr. Emily Reeves: So in order for meaning to help be a successful survival strategy, it needs to at least provide a clear, selectable advantage. And it would also need to really be able to be built from incremental successive mutations.

Now, in contrast to that, our experiences with meaning are that it is something intangible, spiritual, beyond physical dimensions. We don’t have a situation where, you know, you can knock out a gene and suddenly that individual is left with 50% of their understanding of meaning and purpose.

I will caveat this a little bit by saying that our biochemistry does seem to be required to mediate some of this interaction between the spiritual and our physical body. But that doesn’t mean that the biochemistry is like meaning itself.

[00:08:00] Andrew McDiarmid: Yeah, yeah. And to break this down, in your article, you look at some top sources of meaning in life, religion, relationships, and work. Let’s start with religion. Does it promote survival and reproduction?

[00:08:13] Dr. Emily Reeves: Yeah. So if meaning is going to evolve, it must have, as we already said, you know, this selectable advantage. But thinking about what brings us meaning helps us realize the problems with this idea. So for religion, in some cases, you know, you could argue religion does promote survival and reproduction. There are many people of faith that believe children are very important and worth investing in, and therefore they have more offspring than non religious people. But religious people would not say they get meaning from religion because it promotes survival and reproduction. And that is surprising if that’s the reason religion exists. Right. And then secondly, Religion certainly does not always promote survival and reproduction. There’s lots of counterexamples to that. So let’s take the example first of monks and nuns. These people would argue they lead, you know, exceedingly meaningful lives, but they don’t reproduce at all.

There’s also the situation where countless religious people have faced intense persecution through the years for their faith, which ends up costing them their life. And clearly their religion was providing them meaning beyond survival and reproduction. And these traits could not be said to be selected for really, since those people are dead.

There also have been many wars fought in the name of religion, which again, is hardly a great survival strategy. Think of the Crusades or even people fighting wars for freedom, which also arguably brings meaning to people’s lives. So I think maybe the clearest example of this is that in the Christian faith tradition, Jesus lays down his life for his followers and calls his followers to be willing to do the same. That kind of self sacrifice, again, arguably a very meaningful act, but definitely not promoting the Darwinian idea of individual survival and reproduction.

[00:10:17] Andrew McDiarmid: Right, right. Not thinking of those selfish genes, but more of a selfless approach in those examples you’ve mentioned. Now, a popular explanation for religion is group selection, where shared religious beliefs helped foster group cohesion that aided in survival. Does that argument hold any water?

[00:10:37] Dr. Emily Reeves: So shared religious beliefs can foster group cohesion, but I am doubtful that this has often has a selectable advantage. So let’s just take a little example here. If we think about the Mormon faith tradition, they’re a seemingly tight knit group, they often have lots of children, but were they more resistant to say COVID 19 because they work together, they shared resources, et cetera? I don’t know. I kind of doubt that, but, you know, I don’t actually know. So I think this argument really depends on what the selection force is. But I think it’s also unfair that in evolutionary psychology, which is where a lot of these things are discussed, they just make claims like, oh, this is the case, but there’s no evidence to back this up.

[00:11:29] Andrew McDiarmid: Right. And you do point out in your article that it’s easy to come up for an explanation for anything in an evolutionary.

[00:11:38] Dr. Emily Reeves: And it’s opposite.

[00:11:39] Andrew McDiarmid: Yeah. Frame of mind. But you could also explain its opposite too. And so then what are you left with? Well, what about relationships with other people? Are there clear selective advantages inherent in human relationships?

[00:11:54] Dr. Emily Reeves: So maybe we first deal with men and women in the context of like a sexual relationship. Obviously there could be a selection advantage, but then monogamous relationships, which could be argued to bring the most meaningful do not necessarily produce the most offspring.

And also, without a doubt, you know, when you see that cute little old couple that lived their whole life, maybe they were unable to have children or maybe they chose not to. If you talk to them, they’ll tell you that they’re definitely, you can definitely find meaning in life without offspring. So this is another problem.

[00:12:32] Andrew McDiarmid: Yeah, yeah, yeah. In my view, any relationship that takes a me first approach isn’t really going to be very strong or fruitful. Now, on the flip side, you know, those that are sacrificial and can think of their husband or wife and their family more than they think of themselves, then you’re going to get that meaning and you’re going to get that satisfaction that comes with those sacrifices. What about animals? You know, relationships with animals is kind of a big deal these days. I mean, you’ve got some cities that have more animals than kids, you know, and of course the Disney films, you know, driving that relationship with animals. In fact, I just saw the Wild Robot and by the end of the movie, the animals are all in harmony with one another, which totally goes against, you know, the nature of them. But that gets promoted a lot. So what about our relationship with animals? Can the meaning we derive from those interactions simply be reduced to a selective advantage?

[00:13:32] Dr. Emily Reeves: That’s really, it’s an important question.

I think relationships with animals is another example of where meaning isn’t easily connected to this selective advantage. So clearly throughout history, you know, the relationships between peoples and people and animals have brought immense meaning into at least the people’s lives. Animals, you know, we don’t understand completely how they experience the world, but there are certainly signs, I would argue also from the animals that they somehow derive meaning from their relationship with us. But what is difficult is to always describe these relationships and the meaning from them as selectively advantageous. So just take for example, you know, mankind and horses have had a very complex relationship through the ages.

And would we say that horses survived and thrived more because of their interactions with mankind?

Did they create more offspring than if they were in the wild? You know, in some cases certainly yes, but in other cases, maybe not.

So these, these claims are just not well supported with evidence one way or the other. And so I’m, I’m doubtful of them. They, and then, and the horse example is, is, is, is one that you could argue maybe more that, you know, there was a selective advantage there from, for this relationship. Let’s take a different example. Like an old lady and a chihuahua. This relationship doesn’t provide A survival or reproductive benefit for the old lady at all. Maybe it does for the Chihuahua, depending on the environment. Right. But it certainly brings. Brings meaning for the old lady in a way that’s completely independent of selective advantage. So I think that’s the real important thing to realize is that these relationships that bring meaning, the meaning is not linked to this selective advantage.

[00:15:33] Andrew McDiarmid: Right. Yeah, that’s a good point and some good examples there. Well, how about work? A lot of us find meaning in the work that we do. I know you and I do. And those listening might indeed as well. Does that boil down to simply worrying about survival and reproduction? What do you think?

[00:15:51] Dr. Emily Reeves: Yeah, I. Work does bring lots of meaning for me, and so I do. Can relate to this one a lot. I think some of the types of meaning we get from work include things like a sense of accomplishment, achieving something, you know, something we can take pride in. Even our work can be something that we offer up, you know, as worship to God.

And then work certainly also provides us with safety and protection.

So, you know, regarding safety and protection, I think you could argue that work does provide an advantage there, you know, for survival and reproduction. But interestingly, again, the meaning we find in work comes from those other things like the sense of accomplishment or having something to offer up as worship. So again, the aspects of meaning that come from work are not dependent on the safety and protection I would say, that we get from our work.

[00:16:44] Andrew McDiarmid: Right, right. And just while we’re on the topic, why do you appreciate the work that you do? I mean, what gets you up in the morning gets you energized to continue it?

[00:16:54] Dr. Emily Reeves: Yeah, I mean, just a curiosity for the natural world. You know, as a young person, I had a strong curiosity for the natural world, and that has continued throughout my life. Like now, you know, the way I explore that is sometimes through, you know, Google Scholar and reading scientific papers. But the curiosity is. Is still. Still the same. And that feeling of, you know, being able to explore and see the great things God has done gives. Just brings lots of meaning to my.

[00:17:31] Andrew McDiarmid: Yeah, yeah. I can’t remember what I was reading, but it reminded me of that. Just that we should almost have a child’s view of the universe. You know, when we look into the sky, when we gaze into a microscope, that we can sometimes lose. You know, throughout all our years of education and, and busyness with, with. With. With jobs, you know, we. We can lose that sense of wonder, that curiosity, and just that awe that. That can promote a healthy relationship with the world around us. So, yeah, it’s Always, always a good thing to do.

Now, on a design hypothesis, purpose comes from the top down. And before something is done, created, or exists, there is a purpose for it. And because there’s purpose, meaning can be drawn from it. You write that endowing purpose is a capability unique to intelligent agents. And we see this around us in everyday life. Tell us briefly about the belief, desire, intention model, which explains how rational agents work and act.

[00:18:41] Dr. Emily Reeves: Yeah, that’s right, Andrew. So purpose, you know, is the reason something is done or created or exists. And every complex system, every piece of architecture, every. Every work of art arises from a purpose on a. On the part of an agent. And this model you mentioned, belief, desire, intention, kind of just breaks down how agents act.

So the way this model works is it believes that a desired state can be achieved and then desires that state over the current one and then intends to achieve it. And this process is so familiar to us, right? As agents, we find something we want, we conceptualize it, we document what it’s going to take to get that thing or the requirements to build something, and then we balance those with the constraints. Maybe those constraints are imposed by physics, by chemistry, by our finances, or by our spouse. But once, you know, the way that we set about to accomplish different purposes and things happens in this way, and then ultimately, you know, we achieve that goal or purpose through some kind of mechanism. So, you know, maybe that mechanism is we hire a contractor to build that dream shed in our backyard or, you know, something like that. So purpose requires. It requires a couple of critical things. Comprehension, vision, and the capacity to desire or imagine something that’s beyond present reality.

[00:20:17] Andrew McDiarmid: Right. And of course, it goes without saying that an unguided evolutionary process is not going to function this way. Right. It’s not going to have the belief. Hmm. I think we. I think. I think it’d be good to have this around, you know, and then work towards that. There is no force, foresight with. With an unguided process.

You’ve got the. The mechanism of Darwinian evolution, you know, which is mutation, random mutation or variation, and then natural selecting, selecting on those things, natural selection acting on those things. But still no. No model there that even compares to what an intelligent agent can do from start to finish.

[00:21:01] Dr. Emily Reeves: That’s exactly right.

[00:21:03] Andrew McDiarmid: You share a good point that Philip Ball brings up in his book. He says when biologists discuss life, it’s all too often akin to trying to explain a great work of fiction with reference only to words, sentences, and chapters. And it’s like magic gets inserted into each step. So just like words plus magic become sentences, and sentences plus a little magic become pages and chapters, and voila, you have a book.

He compares that to genes plus a little magic become proteins, proteins plus a little magic become cells, and then you get the tissues and bodies as you go. What’s Ball’s point here and do you agree with it?

[00:21:43] Dr. Emily Reeves: Yeah. So this is a really interesting section of the book. So he’s trying to make the point here that the reductionist view of the gene is incorrect. But he uses this brilliant analogy that life is like writing a book.

And his point is, you know, that biologists and scientists are inserting magic at different points of writing the book, which I totally agree with. That’s kind of his argument against this reductionistic view of the gene.

But his analogy also lays out that he thinks, you know, words come before sentences and sentences before chapters in books.

What I disagree with is his solution to try to explain how evolution and natural selection in a bottom up way, because that’s the only way, you know, it can really work in a materialistic worldview, can give rise to the magic without somehow being magic. And I would say, you know, I wish him luck. I think this is a really impossible thing to do.

[00:22:41] Andrew McDiarmid: Right. And you turn that around, you take it further and describe how the writing process is actually reversed. Explain that to us and how it relates to a top down view of biology.

[00:22:52] Dr. Emily Reeves: Yeah. So from a design perspective, what comes first is the idea or the envisioning, right. The planning, the blueprint and then, or the outline for the book and then from this, based on one’s knowledge of, you know, what they want to say in the book, or based on one’s knowledge of chemistry, physics and biology and the resources at your disposal, then you build from there.

And that’s how synthetic biology is done today. You know, we’re not doing this Henry Jekyll style of biology of, in synthetic biology by you know, pouring random chemicals into a flask. That’s fiction.

So I think I love Ball’s analogy that, you know, it’s, it’s like writing a book. I think it’s a great, great analogy.

The idea of the book and some of its chapters and content comes first. You know, you come up with that outline and then more details for the chapters come and then details for the sentences and then the words. So basically the sentences and the words are subservient to the chapters. Right. You can’t do it the other way around.

And so although this is, you know, Ball frames it the other way in his book. It’s really crazy to think about how you would assemble a book from the bottom up, starting with just words. If you do this without any idea, which it’s almost impossible for us as a human agent to do that, you certainly wouldn’t end up with a cohesive book. If you don’t have a plan and you don’t have an author, you don’t have a book.

[00:24:29] Andrew McDiarmid: Right, right. Yeah. It’s a great analogy. Do you. And in reading Philip’s work, do you get a sense where he lands on. On a mechanism that could do it? I mean, is he doubting the traditional, you know, selection, you know, mutation mechanism? Is he going for another way, or do you know?

[00:24:51] Dr. Emily Reeves: I don’t think so. And I’m going to share a quote towards this end. Like, he, he seems to still be, you know, thinking intelligent design is crazy and stuff. So it’s like he’s, he’s acknowledging that meaning and purpose exist, which is a, which is a big win because a lot of people in the world of biology haven’t been willing to even do that. So I would say that’s a big win. Right. Like, I, I applaud him for his courage to, to accept that reality, but he thinks it can still be explained by random processes in natural selection. And I think that’s where some of his colleagues have been wiser and have been like, we’re not going to say anything about meaning and purpose because we know that random processes can’t make something like that.

[00:25:46] Andrew McDiarmid: Yeah, yeah. So at the end of the day, he’s still hoping for a little Darwinian magic, then.

[00:25:52] Dr. Emily Reeves: He is, yes.

[00:25:53] Andrew McDiarmid: Yeah.

[00:25:54] Dr. Emily Reeves: Lots of Darwinian magic.

[00:25:56] Andrew McDiarmid: Well, the pioneering information theorist Henry Quassler has observed that the creation of information is habitually associated with. With conscious activity without an agent directing the creation of that new information. You really do need magic, don’t you? And the more we learn about the mathematical challenges to a Darwinian process, being able to come up with the amount of new information required to fuel the diversity of life that we see on Earth, the more we realize the magic just isn’t there for Darwinian evolution. Is that a fair assessment?

[00:26:27] Dr. Emily Reeves: Yes, absolutely. You know, the idea that random processes and selection, which selection couldn’t have even existed for the origin of life, the idea that these things can generate machines that we know exist in biology, that we see, that we’ve discovered is really, I think it’s pretty crazy. And I think it’s even more crazy to think that it’s able to, you know, that process is able to create abstract, spiritual Things like meaning and purpose. And, you know, as we were just kind of talking about Ball, really, you know, he makes an attempt, I think, to skirt around a growing problem for the materialist that meaning and purpose exist in life and are undeniable.

And I’d kind of summarize this book as his attempt to acknowledge they do exist, which is a great move. But then when he tries to explain how they came to exist, there’s problems. You know, his reasoning goes somewhere, something like this. We know evolution is true. We know meaning and purpose exist. Therefore evolution is capable of creating meaning and purpose.

And I also want to say that, you know, importantly, in order for Ball to do this, he really has to kind of cripple evolutionary theory. So, for example, David Snoke, a physicist, ran a simulation to estimate how much genome fodder, or junk DNA would be necessary in the genome to enable basic types of innovation that would be required for neo Darwinian evolution. And the amount of junk DNA that you’d have to have around was staggering, which is a problem in and of itself because the organism keeping tons of junk DNA around is very problematic for an organism because it’s expensive to make DNA.

So this means it isn’t quite as easy as Ball seems to think it is to claim that evolution only produces good things. And I think a lot of people, a lot of evolutionary biologists realize this. So the reason I would say no one said, no one jumped on the bandwagon before that, you know, meaning and purpose and all this complexity could come about as the result of evolution, like a random process, is that it just doesn’t square with certain aspects of evolutionary theory. And I think Ball is kind of ignoring that. So there’s. There’s actually a quote in the book, Andrew, I’d like to read towards this end if you’re. That’s good for you.

[00:28:52] Andrew McDiarmid: Yeah, yeah, please.

[00:28:53] Dr. Emily Reeves: Yeah. Okay.

So, yeah, this is, this is towards the very end of the book, and it’s a. It’s a paragraph titled Agency and Purpose. He says agency is becoming something of a buzzword in some biological circles, especially those concerned with processes of cognition. The trouble is, no one seems to be able to agree on what it meaning cognition is. Intuitively, we might suspect that what distinguishes living organisms from non living matter is this notion of agency. They can manipulate their environments and themselves to achieve some goal. This makes agency intrinsically linked to ideas about purpose. This is probably why the problem of agency has been absurdly neglected for so long in the life sciences, where questions of purpose have long been shunned as quasi mystical teleology, perhaps only one step away from the dreaded concept of intelligent design.

The result of this neglect and avoidance is that we can end up skirting around the most characteristic feature of all life.

I propose that the time has come to embrace it and there is nothing to fear in doing so.

And that’s the end of the quote. So while I think Philip Ball, you know, is taking a brave step here, I also think explaining meaning and purpose without teleology and that dreaded concept of intelligent design is no small undertaking.

[00:30:27] Andrew McDiarmid: Yeah, yeah. Well, I do admire that he’s willing to, you know, to come to that halfway point and say, look, we’re forgetting this, we’re forgetting, you know, this, this design and we need to, to, to include it in our explanations. But is it going far enough? You know, but that’s where he can meet up with the dreaded folks from the intelligent design community and yes, and, you know, we usher him into the rest of the story.

Well, this really is a fascinating topic and we’ll definitely need to circle back to it again. Before we close today, can you briefly outline for us what a top down approach to biology looks like and what benefits it can provide?

[00:31:10] Dr. Emily Reeves: So first of all, it’s critical for all of our listeners to hear that embracing Intelligent design is not a science stopper. In fact, it is a science starter. So intelligent design can help us think more clearly and accurately about the world. It can help us make better hypotheses, do better science, and ultimately better understand the world around us. Now for biology, this means rather than trying to explain, you know, how genes evolve slowly with lots of mutations into a genome full of junk and bad designs, instead we can explore how body plans dictate the tissue requirements that comprise them. Then those tissue requirements dictate the cellular requirements, and the cellular requirements dictate the protein requirements, and then the protein requirements dictate the genetic information that is necessary to be in the genes.

So this is an application of intelligent design where, you know, that assumption of design guides our investigations of nature, furthers our scientific knowledge and allows us to, you know, better understand ultimately how natural systems work.

[00:32:19] Andrew McDiarmid: Yeah, yeah. And it’s not just folks in the intelligent design community who are latching onto this idea. I mean, we’re seeing this across the field of biology today, aren’t we?

[00:32:28] Dr. Emily Reeves: That’s right, yeah. There are lots of people who are, you know, using the approach I just described who are not subscribers to Intelligent design theory. But the, the basis for the approach they’re taking is, I would say the is, is from Intelligent Design.

[00:32:48] Andrew McDiarmid: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Rather than look at what, what brought about tissues. Look at the tissues and study them and, and decide what needed to come or what needed to be there in order for the tissues to, to be, you know, made and designed. It’s such a better way of, of looking at things. Well, Emily, thanks so much for your time today unpacking this article.

[00:33:11] Dr. Emily Reeves: Yeah, absolutely, Andrew, anytime.

[00:33:14] Andrew McDiarmid: Yeah. Well, we’ll have you back on the show. I’d like to discuss a paper you recently authored on systems biology methodology and that’s related to this top down approach to biology, isn’t it?

[00:33:25] Dr. Emily Reeves: Yes, it is. Yeah. And we can, we’ll get more into the details of kind of what we started talking about at the end of this podcast, I think in the, in that next one. So just to give a little teaser, this is a co authored publication know at the intersection of biology and engineering and the paper really outlines this methodology that’s based on engineering but can be applied to further understanding of biological systems. So I’m excited to talk more details with you.

[00:33:53] Andrew McDiarmid: Yeah, let’s do that soon. Well, we’ll include a link to Emily’s article in the show notes for this episode. You’ll find show notes with additional resources for every single episode we put out@idthefuture.com and if you have a question about today’s content or a comment or suggestion for a future topic or interview, just send me an email andrewdthefuture.com and even if you want to ask Emily something, just send me an email and we’ll send it over to her for ID. The future. I’m Andrew McDiarmid, this is Emily Reeves. Thanks very much for joining us.