ASM034 Mutation, Natural Selection, and Evolution

[transcript automatically generated - please help edit to make it better]

mutation natural selection and evolution it's a darwinian edition of ask sciencemic

[Music]

welcome to ask science mike the weekly podcast where i answer your questions about science faith and life this week i'm in new york city there's a few tickets left if you'd like to come see me with forefront church and then the next weekend i'll be at my own church good samaritan for the peacemakers weekend and i can't believe it there are actually people traveling to tallahassee to be a part it's going to be really exciting more about that at the end of the show but for now let's get it started [Music] the only reason this podcast exists is because some of you asked me to start it on twitter and i got to be honest i wasn't convinced that uh it would work i was really worried that i would go through the work of setting up a web server and an rss feed and all the rigmarole of actually launching a podcast and then there would not be enough questions to keep the show going which turns out to have been a really stupid fear because we have so many questions we'll probably never answer them all already this is in a real way your show it's it's called ask science mike but you guys are the ones asking the questions and because of that you're the ones who guide the conversation and you don't always guide it the way i want to go and i'll give you an example this week's episode is nothing but questions about evolution in my mind i've covered evolution so much that there's not much left to say but it doesn't matter the most common question that comes in for the show there are questions about evolution they've actually overtaken the after dark episode questions now i get more questions about evolution than sex and that's saying something so this week i'm following your direction i'm doing nothing but questions on evolution this could be a total bomb i hope it's not too nerdy an episode obviously i love and am very interested in evolution and its intersection with faith and apparently you are too because i have a ton of questions so i've never done this before but this is a themed episode nothing but questions about evolution hi science mike i'm kind of interested in one of the issues with the literal six day creation and that's the issues of genetics and population size the idea that a starting population of two one man and one woman couldn't provide a genetically viable population just from their offspring i'd like to know what some of the research is on how many people would actually be needed to start a population i've also heard some really interesting research on creation in god's image refers to our particular species having consciousness and having the free thought that we do compared to a more cognitively limited proto-human species what are your thoughts on some of this research and if someone were to want to be really literal about creation how they would contend with the two people who are supposed to have started our population thanks when i was a kid adam and eve confused me because i was in grade school and i remember sitting in my room reading the bible and going through the early chapters of genesis and here you had adam and eve and then they had sons and then you had like stories of more people i was like where did these people come from what in the world and it didn't take long for me to learn about the birds and the bees and to realize that if there were really only two original humans the descendants of those humans would have to interbreed very very quickly in order to produce humanity and it creeped me out it really did when i was very young i mean sex in general creeped me out obviously girls had cooties at that age but adam and eve were weird and so i brought that up in sunday school and my sunday school teacher told me that god probably created more people other than adam and eve later adam and eve were just the first two people god created and then someone else told me that early humans lived a long time and they lived a long time because they were genetically superior to modern humans and because of that for them interbreeding or inbreeding frankly was no big deal well let's look at the science of that idea and of adam and eve obviously if you listen to the show if you've heard me on the liturgist podcast i don't believe adam and eve were literal people it's not part of my understanding of god or creation at all but i understand as well those are really common beliefs in the church i get that i get there's a lot of christians and i mean a lot of christians that believe adam and eve are two actual people literally formed by the hands of god some other people who accept the theory of evolution believe that adam and eve are the first two organisms to have a soul that they evolved certainly but they were the first two humans and still all humans can trace their ancestry to adam and eve um genetic science makes us question that because for organisms that reproduce sexually and not all organisms do by the way there are plenty of asexual animals who can reproduce via division for example but for animals who reproduce sexually the genetic science already has something called a minimum viable population and that is the the smallest amount of that organism that can create a genetically viable population over long periods of time you see for sexually reproducing complex organisms in breeding especially very close in breeding tends to amplify the damaging possibilities introduced by recessive genes and recessive disease they tend to work against beneficial genetic mutation and they create non-viable organisms that often can't reproduce within just a few generations and so with computer models and genetic sequencing scientists can estimate how many individuals you would need for a given species now this is not like a hard number for any species you're not going to get a scientist to give you some specific number or for two scientists to agree exactly on what the best average number is we're not talking about you know an absolutely definitive term but but an estimate for humans for example one scientist who you can see his work linked on the show notes at asksciencemike.com as well as a ton of resources this week on evolution he said that as few as 160 human beings could sustain a viable population for a very long space journey so if we were going to some other star system and back at a high enough speed you could have viable humans for the entire journey it would be very important though at the end of that journey they re-emerge with a larger population of humans and that's what i mean by over time to counteract the effects of inbreeding you need larger population sizes to last for longer time spans greater numbers of generations and most scientists agree you'd need north of 5 000 humans to have a population of homo sapiens that's viable over millions of years now we've only been around for completely modern humans for about a hundred thousand years uh anatomically modern humans probably closer to two hundred thousand but we're still we're still pretty new kids on the block um if i may use an 80s reference 5 000 is a lot more than two obviously now there is one theory in genetics and in genetic sciences that at one point we were almost extinct and that means there may have been as few as 30 to 50 000 hominids on the planet that were our direct ancestors about a million years ago and 50 000 sounds like a lot but it's not really again a 5 000 is is like a bare minimum 50 000 is low for a species like us especially today that numbers in the billions so genetically speaking two humans would make a viable genetic population and we don't even have a framework in genetic sciences under which something as complicated as a human being could sexually reproduce with only two organisms and produce enough diversity to be viable sex is an adaptation that allows multi-celled organisms to compete with microbes microbes reproduce so much faster than we do that sex is a way that we accelerate our mutation rate in order to increase our immunity and competitive advantages against things like bacteria which is funny because if you look at the way sex emerged you didn't have like distinct genders at first for example and so for all of the talks of complementarianism and feminism one fairly biologically way to view a male is that it is a specialized female which i think is hilarious but i understand for those of you who believe genesis is literal and you could cite that a couple ways you could say that god kept introducing new populations of humans as the human population grew or you can really cite a very powerful idea that's that god somehow intervened in genetics if god is real and conscious and has a plan for humanity certainly god could intervene in dna i don't deny that i don't think that's what happened though i'm open to the idea of an all-powerful god with consciousness and agency but the clues that were left behind by this creative work we call the universe lead me to different ideas namely that humans emerged from a long unbroken line of common ancestry going back to life that emerged on the planet four billion years ago now in terms of consciousness and what separates us from animals i would point you back to episode one the first episode of the show uh that i ever did uh i talked about animal souls and consciousness and uh you'll get a full you know i think five or eight minute answer on that in that episode i hope you enjoy that as well [Music] our next question came in via email and it reads hi mike thank you for everything you do i'm open to the idea that god created us through evolutionary processes however it seems like there's a major flaw in evolutionary theory that random mutations don't seem to be able to account for the incredible diversity of life it's puzzling to me that there appears to be a lot of evidence to support common ancestry natural selection etc but it just doesn't make sense to me that random mutation was the vehicle that drove all these complexities thank you stephen well steven your intuition is uh common it seems impossible that completely random processes could produce the life we see on this planet because it's true completely random processes could not produce the diversity of life that we see on this planet in the amount of time that life has had to develop and that doesn't seem to make sense because you've heard over and over that evolution is random that's false evolution is not completely random because random mutations can't account for the incredible diversity of life any more than a crankshaft can account for how cars can move you see a crankshaft is part of an engine but an engine has more parts than just a crankshaft and an engine has to be attached to a transmission that has to be attached to axles which have to be attached to wheels to move a car not to mention that that whole system has to be fed by a fuel of some kind and so in evolutionary terms random mutation is just one part of the engine of evolution it exists it's a factor but it's not the whole solution you see random mutation is part of how dna operates dna has these base pairs these binary information and protein and dna can mutate that can happen when dna is being copied or replicated or it can happen when dna is bombarded by some kind of environmental factor like radiation and that mutation can either remove add or even shift existing information in dna now that mutation can do nothing at all in an organism it can do something very small or it can do something really drastic in the case of fruit flies you can make one little switch in a dna base pair one codeword in their dna and they will grow legs instead of antenna out of their head so that would be a negative adaptation and that's the point these adaptations once expressed in an organism can be negative or positive they can reduce the likelihood of replication through a process called natural selection natural selection is just a word we use to say that the changes that happen in organisms will be favored or not by an environment and that means if you have an adaptation that lets you see more light for example you might be able to evade predators better and make it more likely that your genes will replicate than another organism you're competing against but the thing is natural selection is not perfect genes that don't impair an organism until after they've reproduced aren't really strongly selected against that's why old age isn't something that natural selection tries to weed out the same thing with recessive genes things that impair organisms can hitch a ride on very successful genes simply by being recessive so that most of the time they don't express and therefore don't get weeded out of the gene pool now positive or negative completely depends on the environment you could look at the leaves on plants as an example here a broad leaf is a great strategy in a wet environment because it lets a plant get more light from the sun but if the environment gets dry broad leaves let out too much moisture and so a more narrow leaf or even a needle is a better survival strategy it's not that broad leaves or narrow leaves are universally better it's that they are more adapted to a given environment and that's what natural selection does natural selection simply tests genes simply tests dna information for how suited it is to an environment so you're absolutely right completely random processes would not produce life would not produce all of the diversity and elegance we see in the animal kingdom but random mutation when filtered by natural selection when you have a process that limits out bad information inhibits its ability to reproduce now you've got a recipe for life [Music] and another question that came in via email hey science mike this is a long question but something that has been on my mind i went to a bible college and in a science class we were talking about irreducible complexity and compound traits i'm quite sure you've heard of it the professor talked about a woodpecker as an example of this and how there was no way that natural selection and evolution through time and chance could lead to what is needed for the woodpecker to survive the nerve and muscle coordination a tough beak a heavy duty skull and shock absorbing tissue the argument is if evolution works one step at a time through natural selection and random mutations which part of a woodpecker came first if it had a tough bill and bashed into a tree the skull would be destroyed if it had only a strong skull then the bill would be destroyed the bird dies and it's the end of the evolutionary story the tough bill and heavy duty skull and other characteristics needed would have no functional survival value until it occurred together if natural selection is a blind watchmaker as dawkins puts it how do these two things depend on one another compound traits come about he went on to say that this is the same for the bombardier beetle and the human eye i guess my question is have you ever heard these arguments is this just bad science and does irreducible complexity have any ground in promoting intelligent design over evolution through time chance and the struggle for survival i really have no opinion on this i guess i am just really confused hope this makes sense thanks it absolutely does make sense and i've absolutely heard those arguments before it's interesting that your professor used eyes for an example because eyes might be one of the best pieces of evidence we have for darwinian evolution via natural selection first of all let's be clear evolution does not wipe out traits that aren't directly beneficial to survival if a mutation is benign natural selection has no problem letting it continue in the species if the effect is a slight negative that doesn't prevent the organism from reproducing natural selection lets it continue so already your professor is assigning more intent to natural selection than exists natural selection is a more of a force it's not a guiding hand it doesn't have intent uh any more than gravity has intent it's it's a natural process and let's look at eyes for example we look at an eye and it's so complex when we say it has all these pieces that work together it has a lens it has a retina that attached to an optic nerve that then goes to very sophisticated neurological hardware and any one of these pieces seems useless on its own so how could evolution blindly create something like that but what's funny is when you look at eyes in the animal kingdom today even without fossils they mirror the branches of evolution perfectly for example compound eyes only appear in invertebrates mainly arthropods insects and spiders and the like and they work really well for small bodied creatures but one invertebrate has a complex camera eye like ours that you have a retina and a lens and eye muscles that can move and all those sorts of functions but interestingly enough that eye has the same photoreceptors that are found in compound eyes the photoreceptors of invertebrates very interesting and if you look at vertebrates vertebrates when they have eyes have camera eyes but only jawed vertebrates have rods and cones like humans have and so when you look at these common features of organisms eyes mirror evolutionary development even without looking at fossils or dna but that's not the whole picture and if you kind of roll the clock back and and look at evolution and look at the fossil record we we have a pretty good idea of how this happened every animal that has skin at least almost every there may be some exception i'm not thinking of but every animal i can think of in research that has skin is sensitive to light already at least infrared light we can detect heat and if you look at certain types of flat worms and and round worms they can have eye spots that are sensitive to a broader spectrum of light but they don't form images like our eyes do they simply give them some sense of light and dark and in more sophisticated animals then contribute to our circadian rhythms the the biological rhythms of day and night and having an innate biochemical awareness of day and night can help you even accidentally avoid predation so for most of uh evolutionary history eyes were not things that made images they were simply features that fed these feedback loops in organisms now we can even see those heritage in humans our eyes don't just pipe into our visual cortex smaller bits of nerve endings go to other parts of the brain and can even lead to a phenomenon called blind sight in neurologically blind persons these are people whose eyes work fine but their brain for one reason or another does not produce visual images in some trials people who are neurologically blind will flinch if a graphic on a computer screen is moved quickly by their face completely unaware that they've done so or when showed simplified images of faces and asked to report their mood they will report a mood similar to the image displayed on the screen even though they're unaware that they are seeing anything isn't that interesting that pays homage to eyes that at first were not primarily image seeking systems now we can see you know if you go back 600 million years ago you have eyes kind of similar to a hagfish probably that have multi-layered retinas and have primitive openings but don't actually form images they don't give it animal sight but are still linked to survival through circadian rhythms and then at some point you get a little more sophisticated through a mutation an opening and now you have camera obscura and a retina now you have an eye with the capacity to see vision but it may not be attached to a brain that can do anything with it yet but it didn't cost any extra calories it doesn't negatively affect reproductive strategies and so that i may have hitched a ride on organisms long enough for brains to make use of that data through other mutations the brains got bigger and started to truly see as much as we look at an eye as a complete system and think oh wow that could only be done by intelligence our eyes are actually pretty terribly designed uh an engineer who made a human eye would probably get fired we have really serious focus issues try to read something you know only a few centimeters from your eye you can't it's very blurred and that probably is due to the fact that our eyes originally evolved in aquatic environments and that had to adapt with their own lenses to sing in a gaseous atmosphere our retinas are inside out with fleshy tissue and blood vessels that sit between the environment and our rods and cones now that actually aids our ability to see some frequencies of light but ultimately as a net negative on our visual system and we even have big blind spots where our optic nerves connect and that's not an inevitable feature of biological eyes because the compound or excuse me the camera eyes in invertebrates like squid and octopus octopi don't have that issue they don't have blind spots like we do and all that speaks to an eye that emerged via incremental changes just like a set of unrelated features that don't carry a net penalty or carried some unrelated survival advantage in woodpeckers can produce that stunning survival niche now there's another factor at play here called co-evolution where species evolve together for mutual benefit and that brings me to the gas in the engine of evolution and that's incredible time periods life has been on this planet for an unfathomable number of years our intuition is not prepared to deal with tens of millions hundreds of billions and billions of years but math is and there are mathematically plausible mechanisms to describe how random mutation in conjunction with natural selection can produce even complex features like the human visual system [Music] our next question is an email question it reads science mic big smiley grinny face emoticon can you help me with something i grew up in a conservative evangelical home and i heard the typical stance against evolution in favor of creationism or the very least intelligent design the typical area of agreement though came in the distinction between micro and macro evolution my family had no problem conceding micro level evolution as a viable facet of creation the macro part was always the contention however during my college career i came to be persuaded by theistic evolution the data seems to be there and i see no contradiction with genesis 1-3 and evolution but my friend showed me a video on youtube the other day from world renowned organic chemist dr james torre from rice university in this video tor mentioned that microevolution was a provable fact from his point of view but he can't honestly see how it extrapolates into the area of macro evolution no matter how much time a cell could be given in order to change due to its environment the mechanics just aren't there and as a scientist who is continually working in the area of organic chemistry and nanotechnology it seems he would genuinely have a valid interpretation of the evidence i am trained as a biblical scholar and a theologian not so much in the realm of science you have always helped me think through these issues so can you help explain this i'm always trying to get a better grasp on the details of evolution myself as well as help others who have trouble with these issues as always you are doing great stuff keep up the good work well i am neither biblical scholar theologian nor trained scientist but i will share with you my understanding of the situation regardless first of all james torre is undoubtedly more educated about science than i am but there are also lots of other scientists just as educated with james torre who disagree with his interpretation of micro versus macroevolution and in fact there's really no way around the fact that the present consensus in scientists who specialize in evolutionary biology or even in the biological sciences is that evolution happens including macroevolution and i'm going to try to make this really simple because that's frankly what i love to do to take complex things and make them simple and understandable without losing the fidelity or importance of the theoretical model so let's first look at microevolution all microevolution is mutation drives changes in a population of related organisms typically a single species so a beetle who is a dark green that is uh in a forest that due to weather changes becomes more light green that beetle might mutate and become a light lighter shade of green and that population of beetles will suddenly be a much lighter green that's microevolution almost everybody agrees it happens and the people that don't agree that it happens i guess just don't pay attention to the world in science at all macroevolution on the other hand is the production of new species right where you have so much genetic difference that a new specie emerges and as you said in your questions there's a lot of christians that accept microevolution but not macroevolution it doesn't make any sense to me and here's why macroevolution is microevolution done over and over that's it and this comes down to a common misnomer in how evolution works species don't just change suddenly into another unrelated species it's a gradual drift that occurs over long periods of time it's not that you just one day had homo sapiens that were different than their ancestor it's that a population over time drifted into what we call homo sapiens today think of it this way if microevolution happens how would two populations say of squirrels who were suddenly separated say we we got a million squirrels we captured a million squirrels and we divided them into two populations of 500 000 and we released one population in mexico and the other population in spain over hundreds of thousands of years those populations of squirrel would adapt to different environmental contexts through mutation and everyone agrees that happens but what now that these squirrels are suddenly separated what keeps their dna in sync enough to keep them reproducing together if they don't reproduce with each other anymore if after two million years we took squirrels from each of these populations who were once one population and put them together reunited them in a zoo how would their dna have stayed similar enough to allow them to breed that's the dividing line in species by the way the ability to reproduce and create viable offspring and you need very similar dna for that process to work if you're telling me that over billions of years you don't believe there would ever be enough drift in those two populations to prevent them from breeding again i want you to explain to me what would stop that from happening what mechanism is holding species as species because mutation is just a little drift in information that's all it is and as it keeps happening it keeps drifting there's no fence that keeps one species one species there's no mechanism i've never heard someone give me a scientific explanation for what allows microevolution but prevents macroevolution because there is no difference in what's happening at the molecular level there is no difference in what's happening with the dna so to me the question is not how do you validate macroevolution the question for me is how do you accept microevolution but reject macroevolution when they rely on the same mechanism hi science mike this is luke from minnesota calling uh been reading simon conway morris's work uh on convergence and evolution and honestly understanding about 56 to 57 percent of it uh but he talks quite a bit about this idea that evolution might be actually headed somewhere uh that maybe perhaps there's signs of um purpose so uh i guess that's my question is do you think that there's maybe it's that omega point concept uh is evolution going somewhere and if so uh what are your thoughts on that just a small question thank you very much bye well conway is a legitimate scientist who does real work at a real academic institution he's not some um shill he's not you know somebody with a nothing but a religious agenda he does real science and his work i have studied comes down this idea of convergence which is the idea that for some reason similar traits emerge in species that have independent branches in the tree of life so for example squids and vertebrates independently developed complex camera style eyes and arctic creatures from independent evolutionary branches uh all have adapted to have you know white feathers or fur and heavy snow drifts together independently doesn't this seem like you know evolution is through natural selection favoring certain survival strategies and certain ecological niches well absolutely it does compound eyes and camera eyes are two separate things uh what i mean is complex camera eyes certainly have emerged uh independently via evolution with some differences but still it's it's a remarkable coincidence so we can't get past the idea that somehow natural selection on earth really does favor particular survival strategies conway and and other people in his camp present this as evidence that there is a god driving evolution and i'm sympathetic to that idea but i also have to understand or acknowledge that many scientists disagree with that assessment convergence is not accepted by uh much of the larger scientific community uh and certainly not as uh something that inevitably leads to humanity or or hominids as inevitable outcomes of evolution because if you look at it hominids animals like us are very very new in evolutionary history and there have been several longer periods of evolutionary development between these mass extinction events these periods where most of the diversity of life on earth has been wiped out that did not have anything resembling hominids even though there were complex vertebrates in place you would expect that if there were some inevitable draw and evolution towards human-like life or intelligence that maybe it would have emerged even in the age of the dinosaurs but the thing is we can't run evolution over and over like other experiments this is a science where we're stuck with nothing but observation looking at existing clues in nature much frankly like cosmology now if we think about this idea of the omega point that's a a theoretical idea or a concept that says the universe is moving towards greater complexity and even towards consciousness and that's a beautiful idea that i often allude to poetically and may even be a part of my theology but is not part of my physics because even though our planet keeps moving towards greater levels of complexity and the universe has for a time period produced localized pockets of order there's no question at the largest scales that entropy rules the universe because life on earth is fueled by a dying star and when we look at galaxies today they are much dimmer than the galaxies we can observe from the past from earlier in the universe's history the most recent data keeps validating the idea that the universe is slowly drifting towards an entropic heat death a state in which you know there's an even distribution of energy and temperature so where is god in all of that you know did god architect life in the universe in such a way that will automatically make humans or intelligence or something that god would call in the image of god is convergence a mechanism that drives evolutionism something that points to god will people of faith theistic evolutionists and people in conway's camp would say yes absolutely secular scientists of course say that's extraordinarily unlikely and there's not enough evidence to make such an outrageous claim there's just not enough evidence to make that leap from the null hypothesis to convergence and an intelligent creator where do i sit well those of you who listen to the show probably can guess i don't know i don't know i mean i'm a mystic i get to say most of what i know about god is that i don't know very much about god my approach is simply to look at the fascinating mechanism of evolution via natural selection and understand that amidst a universe drifting towards chaos stars galaxies and planets emerged and life showed up on at least one of those planets and in time led to me and now i get to sit here and ask questions and walk on cool autumn days and eat ice cream i get to see when other people are hurting and see if i can help them i get to talk to my daughters every day after school somehow i've been gifted not only with existence and life but the ability to be aware that i've been gifted with life it's a remarkable blessing so whether god is working through evolution to convergence to create consciousness inevitably or whether somehow we bubbled out of a god that is more of an emanating force more of a deistic idea either way i am immensely grateful to be here and either way i'm going to do everything i can do to honor that incredible gift well there goes a five question episode of ask science mike i know that's longer than normal but there were so many evolution questions i wanted to answer as many as i could i actually tried to arrange those in a way that they would cover more than the questions that have been asked and use those answers to cover a lot of the other questions i've received and i actually tried to arrange those questions in an order where the answers all work together to describe evolution in a larger scale so hopefully that came through in an episode that uh makes sense and is easy to follow i've got a lot more events coming up to end out the year in 2015. like i said this week this thursday i'll be with forefront george in new york there may be a ticket or two left i don't know just go to asksciencemike.com and click events and you can see you might be able to join me and then right after that the next weekend i'll be back in tallahassee at my church good samaritan we're having a peacemakers weekend so i'll be talking friday night and saturday morning we'll have some sessions about different ways of making peace in your life or in society then i'll give another talk about how we engineer peace in society i'll talk a little bit about advocacy and allies and why we fight so much and how to fight less and actually make changes according to science and then sunday morning we'll gather for a time of worship and that will be centered around peace i have been in contact with folks who say they're coming and booking hotel rooms and this is a completely free event uh so if you'd like to come check out a peacemaker's weekend at good samaritan i'd love to see you there the weekend after that i'll be at the sandbox cooperative that'll be an online event that you can be a part of no matter where you are be a live web streaming i'll give a talk we'll have a q a including questions online so if you've never been able to come to an event or you've never been able to do an ask science mike live uh your chance to ask me a question is coming up all those are on ask sciencemike.com just click events up in the in the header the liturgists myself michael gunger lisa gunger honey badger is coming too we're all getting on an airplane and flying to london this november for belong 130 seats tickets are selling pretty well so i suspect this will sell out and probably even sell out in advance of the event so if you're thinking about going go to liturgists.com click on belong in the upper right hand corner and you can learn more about that event if you're interested i've been talking to jim chaffee who helps me with all my event booking and we're going to put on an ask science mike live tour early next year you know late winter early spring time frame or picking city is going to do at least five maybe more and i'd love to see you about that just keep listening to the show there'll be lots of announcements there but i do want to let you know that's coming and yes i hear you on twitter i love the people requesting that i come to specific cities that's really cool uh we need your questions keep them coming especially questions from women i'll always give preference to questions from women because there is such a male bias in science technology engineering and mathematics and you know i'm a feminist that's how i roll and of course our show is listener supported i do ask science mike for a living so you can help create these conversations uh every single dollar helps believe me this is how i pay my mortgage and feed my kids but there's no coercion so you can change or cancel your pledge at any time if money's tight go ahead and lower that amount or cancel completely i'll be fine uh people who contribute to the show get all kind of perks that we're frankly reinventing based on some great conversations with my patrons and uh science mike will always be free that's not going to change now another way you can help the show is if you rate on itunes give me a 5 star rating 4 star rating whatever you think is appropriate and then if you type a review man that makes the show just skyrocket in the in the ratings and the rankings on itunes i'll see really heavy downloads and subscriber growth and that does not move the needle like even two or three people leaving a review on itunes so if you like that that's a great way to help the show that cost nothing but a couple of seconds and uh our show is produced by my good friend greg nordin who i hear so many compliments about the sound quality of the show so thank you for that greg and of course our theme song is by jeff bodafort if you want really amazing music production for whatever you're working on jeb can do it he can write music you can record it you can compose he's a one-stop shop for everything you need in commercial music production thanks for listening everybody and i will see you next week