Consensus should determine what's taught in science classes. Why?

[Meerkat_SK5]

@nwrickert

Well wow! As a source, you link to the blog of JoeG.

Sorry, but you have just lost any remaining credibility. That’s the same JoeG who has been banned both at this forum and at The Skeptical Zone.

If JoeG is your reference, then you’ve got nothing.

Oh snap, really!!!

Why is that? What did he do wrong?

@John_Harshman

That makes no sense. Why should separately created kinds fit into any kind of nested hierarchy? Why should they fit into a molecular one but not a morphological one? There is no reason for that.

Here is what I told @T_aquaticus if you want the detailed response:

For the first question:

Because God’s purpose for creating animals and humans the way they are is to survive and reproduce under a particular environment AND fill other environments around the globe.

As a result, we would expect to see a creationary phylogenetic tree that is very similar in form and function to the evolutionary tree.

However, we would also expect to see a creationist tree that traces life back to a number of unrelated populations (i.e. separate created kinds) that roughly resemble the forms of life we see today.

For the second question, I told him:

Because when you build an evolutionary tree of animals based on their molecular data, it often fits much better with their geographical distribution compared to morphological data. For example, as Matthew Wills, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at the Milner Centre for Evolution at the University of Bath, has pointed out:

“…tiny elephant shrews, aardvarks, elephants, golden moles and swimming manatees have all come from the same big branch of mammal evolution – despite the fact that they look completely different from one another (and live in very different ways).”

“Molecular trees have put them all together in a group called Afrotheria, so-called because they all come from the African continent, so the group matches the biogeography.”

@John_Harshman

Please don’t. I read it the first time. It makes no sense, and it doesn’t explain why the list is correct or how to recognize basic types.

You know what John, you are right. I did not do a good job on explaining what the basic types are. Let me change my approach and do it again. The list below showcases each recognized group of basic types.

What I mean by “group of basic types” is the grouping together of several basic types based on common morphological appearances and lack of precursor ancestors within the fossil record:

Plants
Arthropods/Insects
Jawless Fish
Amphibians
Snakes
Crocodiles
Lizards
Birds/ Dinosaurs
Placental mammals
Rodents
Horses
Bats
Primates and Humans
Whales
Jawed fish
Turtles
Aquatic invertebrates

Now, it is important to point out that some of these groups of basic types have a reduced number of basic types, such as turtles and horses.

This is because they were found to be different breeds from the same created turtle kind from successful hybridization.

On the other hand, there are some groups of basic types, such as Jawless fish and aquatic invertebrates, that comprise only a single basic type.

This is because little research has been done to show a clear-cut lineage between and among either or both fossil and living forms.

@John_Harshman

Useless. Nor are Adam and Eve a created kind, merely the supposed first representatives of a supposed created kind. None of the suppositions are correct for humans.

Prove it then. 6 million years is reportedly the time it took for an ape ancestor to transitioned into humans. This is insufficient time for Darwinists to account for the differences between chimp and human DNA. The burden of proof is on you guys.

@John_Harshman

And here you appear to be saying that created kinds and basic types are the same, or maybe they’re different. Who can tell?

I gave you the definitions of both an original created kind and a basic type. Adam and Eve are the original created kind and all of Mankind is a basic type.

@John_Harshman

This hypothesis is falsified by just about any observation you care to make. Most molecular differences, for example, have nothing to do with design requirements or environment.

Not sure what you mean here or how your example is relevant. Can you give me specific examples of what you are talking about or elaborate more?

Keep in mind, hybridization is the only method that can truly falsify whether a set of similar basic types , which are chosen to be examined, are related (at least according to the Common Design theory).

@John_Harshman

The supposed test is gibberish.

Let me break it down then.

Number 1 method for determining common descent: Hybridization
Number 1 method for determining common design: Finding convergent evolution in regulatory genes

If both methods yield negative results, then…

Number 2 method for determining common descent: finding congruency between morphological and molecular phylogenetic trees including biogeographics

Number 2 method for determining common design: finding substantial differences in ecology and trophic levels

@John_Harshman

@Meerkat_SK5

I acknowledge that this is far from being a rigorous statistical method. But, I am just here to provide a cursory view of how to test for common design. In the future, I think experts in this field can and will be able to fill in the details and make improvements that are scientifically appropriate.

Based on this example, your prediction is not warranted.

Can you elaborate on this?

@T_aquaticus

Explain it in your own words. I have yet to see a single explanation why we can have species with a mixture of mammal and reptile features but not a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features. Care to explain?

Because a mix/match of features like this would be very problematic when it comes to objectively organizing species into nested hierarchies.

@T_aquaticus

@Meerkat_SK5

Again, created kinds would necessarily fit into a nested hierarchy in regard to molecular trees but not morphological trees because they are separately created.

WHY???

I have already explained why so let me change my approach. According to Theobald, transmutation can be confirmed through phylogenetics if morphology and molecular sequences are congruent.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 (talkorigins.org)

If this is required by him or you or @John_Harshman , then I take back what I said before. Instead, separate created kinds CANNOT fit into a universal nested tree of life.

However, if this is not a requirement, then they can fit into a nested hierarchy based on molecular trees., For example, as I mentioned before,

Tiny elephant shrews, aardvarks, elephants, golden moles and swimming manatees are all completely different from one another and live in very different ways. These examples would be considered separate created kinds that don’t fall into nested hierarchy.

On the other hand, “molecular trees have put these animals all together in a group called Afrotheria, because they all come from the African continent, so the group matches the biogeography…” Under these circumstances, these created kinds would fall into a nested hierarchy.

@T_aquaticus

Why couldn’t a created kind have a mixture of bird and mammal features, or a mixture of dolphin and fish features?

Because we are not dealing with multiple designers or an unknown capricious intelligent designer. Instead, we are dealing with a perfect human designer and , thus, we would expect a consistent pattern that can objectively be discovered and understood by outside conscious observers.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@Meerkat_SK5

Why is that? What did he do wrong?

His posts are full of bluster and assertions, but he never backs them up.

JoeG has nothing. And if your reference is to JoeG, then you have nothing.

[John_Harshman]

@Meerkat_SK5

Because God’s purpose for creating animals and humans the way they are is to survive and reproduce under a particular environment AND fill other environments around the globe.

As a result, we would expect to see a creationary phylogenetic tree that is very similar in form and function to the evolutionary tree.

I’m sorry, but your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. As is customary for you.

@Meerkat_SK5

However, we would also expect to see a creationist tree that traces life back to a number of unrelated populations (i.e. separate created kinds) that roughly resemble the forms of life we see today.

But we don’t see such a tree, do we? You still have all sorts of mutually contradictory claims of what a “kind” (=basic type) is. You can make lists all day, but there’s nothing backing them up.

@Meerkat_SK5

Because when you build an evolutionary tree of animals based on their molecular data, it often fits much better with their geographical distribution compared to morphological data.

That doesn’t answer the question. And you would presumably deny that Afrotheria is a basic type. So why should we find it with molecular data, if it doesn’t really exist?

@Meerkat_SK5

The list below showcases each recognized group of basic types.

What do you mean by “group of basic types”? Why should basic types fall into groups? Under your theory there should be no such groups. Since these groups are not basic types, your list is meaningless. Further, some of the groups are contained within other groups. Do you even have a clue about what you’re trying to say?

@Meerkat_SK5

On the other hand, there are some groups of basic types, such as Jawless fish and aquatic invertebrates, that comprise only a single basic type.

Wait, you’re saying that all aquatic invertebrates, from sea anemones to clams to crustaceans, are all one basic type? That goes against everything you’ve ever said about basic types.

@Meerkat_SK5

This is because little research has been done to show a clear-cut lineage between and among either or both fossil and living forms.

Ah, so basic types are defined by ignorance. OK.

@Meerkat_SK5

Prove it then. 6 million years is reportedly the time it took for an ape ancestor to transitioned into humans. This is insufficient time for Darwinists to account for the differences between chimp and human DNA. The burden of proof is on you guys.

Why would you imagine that 6 million years is insufficient? Did you read that on some creationist web site?

@Meerkat_SK5

I gave you the definitions of both an original created kind and a basic type. Adam and Eve are the original created kind and all of Mankind is a basic type.

Gibberish.

@Meerkat_SK5

Can you give me specific examples of what you are talking about or elaborate more?

Most of your genome is junk DNA; it has no function and has nothing to do with design requirements or environment. A great many functional genes have identical function throughout a wide group, regardless of environment. Cytochrome b, for example, does the same thing everywhere in the biota. Yet it shows a nested hierarchy. Why?

@Meerkat_SK5

Keep in mind, hybridization is the only method that can truly falsify whether a set of similar basic types , which are chosen to be examined, are related (at least according to the Common Design theory).

That was incoherent. According to the “theory”, what hybridization can falsify is whether two species belong to different basic types. According to your definition, different basic types are not related. And finally, you have no reason to suppose that unrelated species would be incapable of hybridization.

@Meerkat_SK5

Number 1 method for determining common descent: Hybridization
Number 1 method for determining common design: Finding convergent evolution in regulatory genes

Neither is supportable as an actual test. You have certainly given no argument for them.

@Meerkat_SK5

Number 2 method for determining common descent: finding congruency between morphological and molecular phylogenetic trees including biogeographics

Number 2 method for determining common design: finding substantial differences in ecology and trophic levels

Again, you don’t even attempt to justify these inferences.

@Meerkat_SK5

Can you elaborate on this?

To a degree. Your quotes from “experts in the field” demonstrate current incompetence, and there is no reason to expect that current incompetence predicts future competence; rather it predicts continued incompetence in the future, if anything.

[T_aquaticus]

@Meerkat_SK5

Because a mix/match of features like this would be very problematic when it comes to objectively organizing species into nested hierarchies.

So God could have created a viable, healthy, and successful archetype that had a mixture of bird and mammal features, but chose not to because this would be problematic for organizing species into an objective nested hierarchy?

Are you serious? God went out of his way to make it look like life evolved for no other purpose than to make life look like it evolved?

@Meerkat_SK5

Tiny elephant shrews, aardvarks, elephants, golden moles and swimming manatees are all completely different from one another and live in very different ways. These examples would be considered separate created kinds that don’t fall into nested hierarchy.

But they do fall into a nested hierarchy based on both molecular and morphological features.

@Meerkat_SK5

On the other hand, “molecular trees have put these animals all together in a group called Afrotheria, because they all come from the African continent, so the group matches the biogeography…” Under these circumstances, these created kinds would fall into a nested hierarchy.

Why would the DNA sequences from separately created kinds fall into a nested hierarchy? WHY???

@Meerkat_SK5

Because we are not dealing with multiple designers or an unknown capricious intelligent designer. Instead, we are dealing with a perfect human designer and , thus, we would expect a consistent pattern that can objectively be discovered and understood by outside conscious observers.

There are tons of patterns that could have been used other than a nested hierarchy. So why would God choose the one and only pattern that evolution would produce?

For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards. Therefore I have no hesitation in saying that this way of looking at the evidence in favour of natural selection is not a scientific or a reasonable way of looking at it, but a purely superstitious way.

. . .

Now, since the days of Linnæus this principle has been carefully followed, and it is by its aid that the tree-like system of classification has been established. No one, even long before Darwin’s days, ever dreamed of doubting that this system is in reality, what it always has been in name, a natural system. What, then, is the inference we are to draw from it? An evolutionist answers, that it is just such a system as his theory of descent would lead him to expect as a natural system. For this tree-like system is as clear an expression as anything could be of the fact that all species are bound together by the ties of genetic relationship. If all species were separately created, it is almost incredible that we should everywhere observe this progressive shading off of characters common to larger groups, into more and more specialized characters distinctive only of smaller and smaller groups. At any rate, to say the least, the law of parsimony forbids us to ascribe such effects to a supernatural cause, acting in so whimsical a manner, when the effects are precisely what we should expect to follow from the action of a highly probable natural cause.

–George Romanes, “The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution”, 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

[Tim]

@Meerkat_SK5

Because a mix/match of features like this would be very problematic when it comes to objectively organizing species into nested hierarchies.

WHY would God impose upon himself the LIMITATION of organising life into a nested hierarchy of features, when this limitation results in SUB-OPTIMAL designs?

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Meerkat_SK5

On the other hand, “molecular trees have put these animals all together in a group called Afrotheria, because they all come from the African continent, so the group matches the biogeography…” Under these circumstances, these created kinds would fall into a nested hierarchy.

Circumstances? That is hard molecular and morphological data that naturally presents as a nested hierarchy, which along with paleontological fossils and biogeography, is evidence of common descent.

Your inconsistent skipping around and mishmash of kinds, groups, types, and baramins, however, provides an instructive exhibit of the arbitrary and capricious characteristic of creationist classifications.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Meerkat_SK5

What I mean by “group of basic types” is the grouping together of several basic types based on common morphological appearances and lack of precursor ancestors within the fossil record:

Placental mammals
Rodents
Horses
…
Aquatic invertebrates

Hmmm.

In the same basic type group based on common morphological appearance:

Not in the same basic type group due to lack of common morphological appearance:

In the same basic type group based on common morphological appearance:

Not in the same basic type group due to lack of common morphological appearance:

In the same basic type group based on common morphological appearance:

Not in the same basic type group due to lack of common morphological appearance:

[John_Harshman]

Simple enough. The farther away from humans, the less creationists care. Thus Homo sapiens is a basic type, and prokaryotes are a basic type. You could probably graph taxonomic rank of the basic type vs. genetic distance from humans and get a strong correlation.

[Meerkat_SK5]

@John_Harshman

@Meerkat_SK5

However, we would also expect to see a creationist tree that traces life back to a number of unrelated populations (i.e. separate created kinds) that roughly resemble the forms of life we see today.

But we don’t see such a tree, do we? You still have all sorts of mutually contradictory claims of what a “kind” (=basic type) is. You can make lists all day, but there’s nothing backing them up.

No, we do. It is just in the form of gene conflicts found on the nodes of the tree between molecular trees and morphological trees. Again, the study I gave you before suggested that this is where underlying causal processes or mechanisms are most likely at play:

“We suggest that episodic evolutionary and population events leave signatures of conflict within genomes that may offer important insight on the processes responsible not only for conflict but also for massive changes in phenotype across disparate lineages.”

The nodes are exactly where we would expect God to create the unrelated populations from the archetypical blueprints that you assume to be ancestors.

@John_Harshman

That doesn’t answer the question. And you would presumably deny that Afrotheria is a basic type. So why should we find it with molecular data, if it doesn’t really exist?

Let me change my approach then. According to Theobald, transmutation can be confirmed through phylogenetics if morphology and molecular sequences are congruent.

If this is required by him or you, then I take back what I said before. Instead, separate created kinds CANNOT fit into a universal nested tree of life.

However, if this is not a requirement, then they can fit into a nested hierarchy based on molecular trees., For example, as I mentioned before,

Tiny elephant shrews, aardvarks, elephants, golden moles and swimming manatees are all completely different from one another and live in very different ways. These examples would be considered separate created kinds that don’t fall into nested hierarchy.

On the other hand, “molecular trees have put these animals all together in a group called Afrotheria, because they all come from the African continent, so the group matches the biogeography…”

Under these circumstances, shrews, aardvarks, elephants, golden moles and swimming manatees are basic types that would fall into a nested hierarchy.

@John_Harshman

What do you mean by “group of basic types”? Why should basic types fall into groups? Under your theory there should be no such groups. Since these groups are not basic types, your list is meaningless. Further, some of the groups are contained within other groups. Do you even have a clue about what you’re trying to say?

@John_Harshman

Wait, you’re saying that all aquatic invertebrates, from sea anemones to clams to crustaceans, are all one basic type? That goes against everything you’ve ever said about basic types.

@John_Harshman

Ah, so basic types are defined by ignorance. OK.

@John_Harshman

@Meerkat_SK5

I gave you the definitions of both an original created kind and a basic type. Adam and Eve are the original created kind and all of Mankind is a basic type.

Gibberish

I am going to need more time to address and provide a much more clear and precise description of basic types. But, I want to address everything else you guys said sooner so we can move forward faster on other points.

@John_Harshman

Why would you imagine that 6 million years is insufficient? Did you read that on some creationist web site?

Because of the HAR1 gene. As Hugh Ross has pointed out in a study on it, “From an evolutionary point of view less than one (0.27) base change(s) is expected in the HAR1 DNA sequence in the time elapsed since chimps and humans diverged from their common ancestor. Eighteen changes in human HAR1 equates to 67 times the number of changes expected…”

Here is the actual study he is referring to…

Distinctive structures between chimpanzee and human in a brain noncoding RNA - PubMed (nih.gov)

@John_Harshman

Most of your genome is junk DNA; it has no function and has nothing to do with design requirements or environment. A great many functional genes have identical function throughout a wide group, regardless of environment.

Oh I see now, you are using your biased theory-laden definition of function to make this objection sound valid or relevant (which it is not).

@John_Harshman

@Meerkat_SK5

Number 1 method for determining common descent: Hybridization
Number 1 method for determining common design: Finding convergent evolution in regulatory genes

Neither is supportable as an actual test. You have certainly given no argument for them.

@Meerkat_SK5

Number 2 method for determining common descent: finding congruency between morphological and molecular phylogenetic trees including biogeographics

Number 2 method for determining common design: finding substantial differences in ecology and trophic levels

Again, you don’t even attempt to justify these inferences.

That is because I have already justified them previously. So I guess I will do it again. The Number 1 method for determining common descent is Hybridization because as Microbiologist and creationist Siegfried Scherer has stated that

" if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same “basic type”. Thus all members of a ring species would be members of the same kind. Scherer also updated Marsh’s explanation of true fertilization:"

“ Two individuals belong to the same basic type if embryogenesis of a hybrid continues beyond the maternal phase, including subsequent co-ordinated expression of both maternal and paternal morphogenetic genes."

Number 2 method for determining common design is finding substantial differences in ecology and trophic levels because…As Randy from ICR has pointed out:

“…organisms were programmed to adapt to fill environmental niches. This information is previously encoded in the entire organism—not just the genes—to control embryonic development. Reproduction transmits the entire system to the next generation.”

In other words, "…the reproductive and adaptive capacity or ‘seed’ of an organism was always programmed ‘in itself’ to reproduce ‘after its kind’ so that the organism could be ‘fruitful [divide/branch into diverse progeny] and multiply’ to deliberately pioneer or “fill” environments of “the earth.”

@T_aquaticus

So God could have created a viable, healthy, and successful archetype that had a mixture of bird and mammal features, but chose not to because this would be problematic for organizing species into an objective nested hierarchy?

Remember, the modifications Owen is referring to are abstract platonic forms that existed already in the mind of God where God foreknew all the changes that were going to happen from a universal common plan of organisms. For instance, Humans would the created modified form of Neanderthals that was previously created from a preexisting non-material common blueprint rather than a common ancestor. Neanderthals would be the created modified form of Homo heidelbergensis. Homo heidelbergensis would be the created modified form of mammals. Mammals would be the created modified form of vertebrates. As a result, we get back to a single common archetypical plan for all vertebrates showing a nested hierarchical pattern from a common design perspective (i.e. Design with slight modification). This is almost precisely what Owen’s theory suggests:

"…the more modified the organism from the archetype, the higher its position in the ranks of nature. Eventually, furthest removed from the archetype of any vertebrate, one finds Man, “the highest and most modified of all organic forms, in which the dominion of the controlling and specially-adapting force over the lower tendency to type and vegetative repetition is manifested in the strongest characters” [3, p. 132].

Furthermore, archetypes cannot be created because they define what God is. Modern science would describe this universal common archetype as the universal wave-function.
Universal wavefunction - Wikipedia

@T_aquaticus

Are you serious? God went out of his way to make it look like life evolved for no other purpose than to make life look like it evolved?

This is the fundamental error that you are making here. There is no evidence of common descent in living or fossil organisms. There is nothing to infer from nature that would compel anybody to make this conclusion. The simulation of common descent is just in your mind and you guys are imposing it onto the data just like Darwin did in his day. All he did was modify Owen’s theory from common archetype to common ancestor and then assumed (like you guys do) that living organisms evolved from these ancestors. For this reason, I don’t understand, nor can I answer the question properly.
Here is a quote from Mark Pagel that basically illustrates my point:

“Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth, and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation."

Mark Pagel, 1999. “**[Happy accidents?]”, Nature, vol. 397(6721), pages 664-665, February.

FYI, sudden appearances, stasis, and fully formed fossils are expected from progresive creationists models. Plus, this issue existed before Darwin’s time.

@T_aquaticus

@Meerkat_SK5

Tiny elephant shrews, aardvarks, elephants, golden moles and swimming manatees are all completely different from one another and live in very different ways. These examples would be considered separate created kinds that don’t fall into nested hierarchy.

But they do fall into a nested hierarchy based on both molecular and morphological features.

I was not saying they did not. Remember, I specifically said that they are considered separate created kinds, at least according to my model, because they conflict with molecular trees.

@T_aquaticus

Why would the DNA sequences from separately created kinds fall into a nested hierarchy? WHY???

Because there is now strong statistical proof of molecular trees fitting better not just in groups like Afrotheria, but across the tree of life in birds, reptiles, insects and plants too. I gave you the study already on this.

@T_aquaticus

There are tons of patterns that could have been used other than a nested hierarchy. So why would God choose the one and only pattern that evolution would produce?

Because there exists some functional requirement that the pattern just so happens to satisfy by default. Top-down causation and emergence: some comments on mechanisms | Interface Focus (royalsocietypublishing.org)

@Tim

WHY would God impose upon himself the LIMITATION of organising life into a nested hierarchy of features, when this limitation results in SUB-OPTIMAL designs?

I don’t accept your premise that these are sub-opitimal designs. They have been discovered to be optimal for the purpose God has in store.

@RonSewell

Circumstances? That is hard molecular and morphological data that naturally presents as a nested hierarchy, which along with paleontological fossils and biogeography, is evidence of common descent.

I have already provided studies of massive gene conflicts between these data sets that beg to differ.

[Tim]

@Meerkat_SK5

I don’t accept your premise that these are sub-opitimal designs. They have been discovered to be optimal for the purpose God has in store.

I don’t accept that you have any idea what you’re talking about (in fact, as far as I can see, nobody on these threads accepts that you do).

“They have been discovered to be optimal for the purpose God has in store” is simply a statement of blind faith. It is also unfalsifiable, as nobody can prove what “purpose God has in store”. Dodos went extinct? The “purpose” God had in store for them was to go extinct. Covid 19 becomes a pandemic? The “purpose” God had in store for it was to become a pandemic. The claim has zero explanatory power.

They have not been “discovered” to be optimal, they have merely been argued to be optimal, generally by inexpert apologists who don’t know what they’re talking about.

It is however abundantly clear that some features are better optimised for certain environments than others. Feathers are better optimised for flight, gills are better optimised for life underwater, etc, etc. Lack of these features, in such environments, is clearly sub-optimal. It really does not matter whether you “accept” this or not – reality does not require your acceptance.

[John_Harshman]

@Meerkat_SK5

No, we do. It is just in the form of gene conflicts found on the nodes of the tree between molecular trees and morphological trees.

You overestimate the extent of conflicts. Nor do you present any reason why the pattern you suggest is indicative of separate creation. Nor do you clearly identify any of the nodes that represent archetypes or any of the nodes that represent basic types. In fact nothing you say is ever clear.

@Meerkat_SK5

Let me change my approach then.

In other words, you are abandoning your previous certainties and taking up some new ones. How can anyone take you seriously?

@Meerkat_SK5

According to Theobald, transmutation can be confirmed through phylogenetics if morphology and molecular sequences are congruent.

I don’t believe you are correctly understanding Theobald.

@Meerkat_SK5

Under these circumstances, shrews, aardvarks, elephants, golden moles and swimming manatees are basic types that would fall into a nested hierarchy.

Why? Why would you say these are all basic types? Why do they fall into a nested hierarchy? What is Afrotheria in your creationist scheme?

@Meerkat_SK5

I am going to need more time to address and provide a much more clear and precise description of basic types. But, I want to address everything else you guys said sooner so we can move forward faster on other points.

I don’t think it’s time you need. It’s just impossible to clearly and precisely describe basic types, for the simple reason that there are no such things.

@Meerkat_SK5

“From an evolutionary point of view less than one (0.27) base change(s) is expected in the HAR1 DNA sequence in the time elapsed since chimps and humans diverged from their common ancestor. Eighteen changes in human HAR1 equates to 67 times the number of changes expected…”

Hugh Ross is not competent in biology. Does he understand the difference between the mean and the tails of a distribution? Possibly not.

@Meerkat_SK5

Oh I see now, you are using your biased theory-laden definition of function to make this objection sound valid or relevant (which it is not).

In my experience, you have never seen anything. I note that you have never been able to provide a definition of function except the one that defines function in terms of function.

@Meerkat_SK5

Microbiologist and creationist Siegfried Scherer has stated that

" if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same “basic type”. Thus all members of a ring species would be members of the same kind. Scherer also updated Marsh’s explanation of true fertilization:"

Note that this is just a naked claim with no attempt at justification.

@Meerkat_SK5

“ Two individuals belong to the same basic type if embryogenesis of a hybrid continues beyond the maternal phase, including subsequent co-ordinated expression of both maternal and paternal morphogenetic genes."

This is a quite minimal form of hybridization. I’m willing to bet that all primates would belong to the same basic type under that definition, but of course the experiment would be dubiously ethical. And note again that this is a naked claim with no attempt at justification.

@Meerkat_SK5

“…organisms were programmed to adapt to fill environmental niches. This information is previously encoded in the entire organism—not just the genes—to control embryonic development. Reproduction transmits the entire system to the next generation.”

Another naked claim.

@Meerkat_SK5

In other words, "…the reproductive and adaptive capacity or ‘seed’ of an organism was always programmed ‘in itself’ to reproduce ‘after its kind’ so that the organism could be ‘fruitful [divide/branch into diverse progeny] and multiply’ to deliberately pioneer or “fill” environments of “the earth.”

And another. Do you realize that just saying something is true is not evidence that it’s true?

@Meerkat_SK5

FYI, sudden appearances, stasis, and fully formed fossils are expected from progresive creationists models.

This claim suffers from your inability to decide what are archetypes, basic types, kinds, and species, and where separate creation comes into it. The logical outcome from your statements in this post is that each species is a separate created kind or basic type (assuming you have a consistent definition of either of those things). And yet you contradict this frequently. There is absolutely no consistency to your claims.

@Meerkat_SK5

@T_aquaticus

Why would the DNA sequences from separately created kinds fall into a nested hierarchy? WHY???

Because there is now strong statistical proof of molecular trees fitting better not just in groups like Afrotheria, but across the tree of life in birds, reptiles, insects and plants too. I gave you the study already on this.

That isn’t an explanation. What about this says that various afrotherians (and birds, reptiles, etc.) are separate created kinds? You have offered no argument.

@Meerkat_SK5

Because there exists some functional requirement that the pattern just so happens to satisfy by default.

Functional requirements do not result in nested hierarchy. They result, if anything, in similarity, which is not the same thing. And then you go off into a tangent about design flaws, which is irrelevant to the question.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Meerkat_SK5

Here is a quote from Mark Pagel that basically illustrates my point:

“Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth, and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation."

Mark Pagel, 1999. “**[Happy accidents?]”, Nature, vol. 397(6721), pages 664-665, February.

This is yet another example of @Meerkat_SK5 lying about his sources. He didn’t get this from Nature, because the original text is slightly different. @Meerkat_SK5’s version does match this article by Casey Luskin, so that may be his actual source.

@Meerkat_SK5 has once again tried to hide his use of a quote-mine by not citing whatever secondary source he used, and using a citation from somewhere else. My best guess is that he copied it from here and then misedited it, but I can’t be sure.

What I can be sure of is that @Meerkat_SK5 hasn’t read the article he’s citing.

[John_Harshman]

And here is the actual article by Pagel, which turns out to be just a very short review of a book by Niles Eldredge:
https://www.nature.com/articles/17737

And this is the exact quote:

Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years — patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation.

The only difference seems to be the insertion of a comma, perhaps also the change of an em dash to a hyphen.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Meerkat_SK5

Siegfried Scherer has stated that

" if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same “basic type”.

No, Scherer didn’t state that. That’s a paraphrase of Scherer’s ideas that @Meerkat_SK5 cribbed without attribution from here, along with two more sentences, making it look as if Scherer talked about himself in the 3rd person.

Number 2 method for determining common design is finding substantial differences in ecology and trophic levels because…As Randy from ICR has pointed out:

“…organisms were programmed to adapt to fill environmental niches. This information is previously encoded in the entire organism—not just the genes—to control embryonic development. Reproduction transmits the entire system to the next generation.”

I have no idea where @Meerkat_SK5 got that fragment from, but it wasn’t from Randy Guliuzza’s article, which says “Organisms are programmed to adapt to fill environmental niches. Genetics and developmental pathways help control embryonic development of similarity in form from flies to dinosaurs. But flies are flies because of uniquely specified developmental controls. This information is previously encoded in the entire organism—not just the genes—to control embryonic development. Reproduction transmits the entire system to the next generation.”

I hope no-one is being fooled into thinking @Meerkat_SK5 has read any of the works he is ‘quoting’ from.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@John_Harshman

The only difference seems to be the insertion of a comma, perhaps also the change of an em dash to a hyphen.

Yes, the differences are small in this case. But not small enough to go unnoticed, and large enough to expose @Meerkat_SK5’s habitual deception.

[Meerkat_SK5]

@John_Harshman

You overestimate the extent of conflicts.

You never explained how I was doing this based on what the study clearly stated…

“Phylogenomic conflict, where gene trees disagree about species tree resolution, is common across genomes and throughout the Tree of Life (1–3).” [emphasis added]

Besides, you are underestimating the extent of convergent genes, which also provide a basis for identifying unrelated population of organisms:

Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals | Nature

@John_Harshman

Nor do you present any reason why the pattern you suggest is indicative of separate creation.

Yes, I did. The pattern I suggested is evidence of separate creation because they represent top-down causation, which is a central feature of how the origin of life came about. The origin of life and the origin of a population created kinds are both top-down processes.

@John_Harshman

Nor do you clearly identify any of the nodes that represent archetypes or any of the nodes that represent basic types. In fact nothing you say is ever clear.

Because the study I provided has already done so for me. .

@John_Harshman

@Meerkat_SK5

According to Theobald, transmutation can be confirmed through phylogenetics if morphology and molecular sequences are congruent.

I don’t believe you are correctly understanding Theobald.

How so? explain why.

@John_Harshman

Why? Why would you say these are all basic types? Why do they fall into a nested hierarchy? What is Afrotheria in your creationist scheme?

Because the morphological trees conflict with the molecular trees. Gene conflicts are a source of evidence for unrelated populations of organisms under my theory.

@John_Harshman

In my experience, you have never seen anything. I note that you have never been able to provide a definition of function except the one that defines function in terms of function.

Keep in mind, function for ERVS and psuedogenes also provide evidence for my theory as well and they coincide with your definition of function. Again, I am drawing from more than one definition of function to provide support for my theory.

@John_Harshman

Note that this is just a naked claim with no attempt at justification.

@John_Harshman

This is a quite minimal form of hybridization. I’m willing to bet that all primates would belong to the same basic type under that definition, but of course the experiment would be dubiously ethical. And note again that this is a naked claim with no attempt at justification.

@John_Harshman

And another. Do you realize that just saying something is true is not evidence that it’s true?

I did this all already, You just have a short memory. Again, everything I said is supported by observations showing how life itself is inherently a Top-down process “where an abstract and non-physical systemic entity (algorithmic information) effectively becomes a causal agent capable of manipulating its material substrate”, as I referenced before.

This is further supported by the number of alleged design flaws that were found to be optimal, which is so high that it strongly suggests that this being has no flaws or limitations in character or will. Optimality: a function or a sensible purpose for basic type of organisms, which involves the survival, reproduction or fit within an environment of those basic types.

More importantly, the stasis we find in the fossil record further supports this creation process because fossils and its living counterpart show remarkably little change. This means that the transitional forms between higher taxa that Gould mentioned represents common ancestors NOT primitive ancestors.

Lastly, observations indicate that basic types are likely to be identified near or at the level of the family. Moreover, a survey by Parker et. al indicates that members of a given family tend to thrive in more or less in similar ecologies and trophic levels.

@John_Harshman

Functional requirements do not result in nested hierarchy. They result, if anything, in similarity, which is not the same thing.

Not true, take a look at this article for more:

“Both bottom-up and top-down causation occur in the hierarchy of structure and causation… Five essentially different classes of top-down influence can be identified, and their existence demonstrated by many real-world examples. They are: algorithmic top-down causation; top-down causation via non-adaptive information control, top-down causation via adaptive selection, top-down causation via adaptive information control and intelligent top-down causation (the effect of the human mind on the physical world). Through the mind, abstract entities such as mathematical structures have causal power.” [emphasis added]

Top-down causation and emergence: some comments on mechanisms | Interface Focus (royalsocietypublishing.org)

These abstract entities would be considered the archetypes Owen was referring to in his theory…

@Tim

“They have been discovered to be optimal for the purpose God has in store” is simply a statement of blind faith. It is also unfalsifiable, as nobody can prove what “purpose God has in store”. Dodos went extinct? The “purpose” God had in store for them was to go extinct. Covid 19 becomes a pandemic? The “purpose” God had in store for it was to become a pandemic. The claim has zero explanatory power.

They have not been “discovered” to be optimal, they have merely been argued to be optimal, generally by inexpert apologists who don’t know what they’re talking about.

It is however abundantly clear that some features are better optimised for certain environments than others. Feathers are better optimised for flight, gills are better optimised for life underwater, etc, etc. Lack of these features, in such environments, is clearly sub-optimal. It really does not matter whether you “accept” this or not – reality does not require your acceptance.

I beg to differ. It has been repeatedly found that what initially seemed to be design flaws caused by an unguided process instead of a divine agent turned out not to be flaws at all with increasing understanding of the design.This means that what looks like a flaw may actually be the result of practical limitations caused by tradeoffs between conflicting design objectives. Thus, before we assume that we have spotted a “design flaw,” we need to know the consequences of “fixing” the flaw .

[Tim]

@Meerkat_SK5

I beg to differ. It has been repeatedly found that what initially seemed to be design flaws caused by an unguided process instead of a divine agent turned out not to be flaws at all with increasing understanding of the design.This means that what looks like a flaw may actually be the result of practical limitations caused by tradeoffs between conflicting design objectives. Thus, before we assume that we have spotted a “design flaw,” we need to know the consequences of “fixing” the flaw .

Let me correct this for you:

My religious preconceptions won’t let me accept this. Inexpert apologists (who share these preconceptions) have repeatedly asserted (without solid substantiation) that what initially seemed to be design flaws caused by an unguided process instead of a divine agent turned out not to be flaws at all with increasing understanding of the design. This means absolutely nothing, and the apologists don’t have a solid factual basis for their hand-waving about “tradeoffs”. I assume that these design flaws aren’t real, in spite of the fact that many of them have been pointed out by actual biologists, and neither I nor the apologists I cite on the subject of biology have any relevant expertise whatsoever. I don’t want to believe it, so it can’t be true, and I’ll seek out whoever I can find, no matter how half-baked, to help me believe otherwise.

I am assuming that your main sources for these ridiculous claims are Fuzzy Rana, Hugh Ross, Casey Luskin and similar – none of whom have any expertise in biology, let alone in a specialisation of biology that would make their claims, about what is and isn’t optimal, to have any weight.

But by all means prove me wrong – show me actual analysis, citing actual evidence, from an actual biologist (i) that it is optimal for bats to lack feathers, or (ii) that it is optimal for dolphins to lack gills.

Until then, you remain where you first started, with your first heavily ciriticised post on this forum, with nothing.

[John_Harshman]

@Meerkat_SK5

You never explained how I was doing this based on what the study clearly stated…

“Phylogenomic conflict, where gene trees disagree about species tree resolution, is common across genomes and throughout the Tree of Life (1–3).” [emphasis added]

Very simple. Gene trees disagree only slightly about species tree resolution, i.e. one or two branches out of many. Further, the reasons for conflict are clear, and short branches show more conflict than long ones, as predicted by known causes. None of this supports your claim.

@Meerkat_SK5

Besides, you are underestimating the extent of convergent genes, which also provide a basis for identifying unrelated population of organisms:

Note that this convergence is not enough to obscure the true phylogenetic signal. And you still don’t give a reason why convergence identifies unrelated populations.

@Meerkat_SK5

The pattern I suggested is evidence of separate creation because they represent top-down causation, which is a central feature of how the origin of life came about.

I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean, or how you distinguish top-down causation from bottom-up causation.

@Meerkat_SK5

Because the study I provided has already done so for me. .

Which study? I see no such thing.

@Meerkat_SK5

How so? explain why.

I think you think that’s supposed to be the only way transmutation can be confirmed, though of course Theobald mentions a host of ways.

@Meerkat_SK5

Because the morphological trees conflict with the molecular trees. Gene conflicts are a source of evidence for unrelated populations of organisms under my theory.

Why? And are you now saying that every species of yeast is a different basic type?

@Meerkat_SK5

Again, I am drawing from more than one definition of function to provide support for my theory.

So you have no idea what you mean when you say “function”. Not a good way to work.

@Meerkat_SK5

Again, everything I said is supported by observations showing how life itself is inherently a Top-down process “where an abstract and non-physical systemic entity (algorithmic information) effectively becomes a causal agent capable of manipulating its material substrate”, as I referenced before.

Such observations as you have mentioned don’t say anything about a top-down process, or at least you have given no reason to suppose they do.

@Meerkat_SK5

This is further supported by the number of alleged design flaws that were found to be optimal, which is so high that it strongly suggests that this being has no flaws or limitations in character or will. Optimality: a function or a sensible purpose for basic type of organisms, which involves the survival, reproduction or fit within an environment of those basic types.

That’s not a definition of optimality, and you really can’t show optimality, nor can you show that natural selection could not produce a similar state. Further, this is evidence of common descent, not of basic types. The only reason a panda has it’s “thumb” is that its real thumb was lost in its caniform ancestors. That’s evidence of common descent, whereas a creator could just put the same structure everywhere it could be useful without reference to any ancestral conditions.

@Meerkat_SK5

More importantly, the stasis we find in the fossil record further supports this creation process because fossils and its living counterpart show remarkably little change. This means that the transitional forms between higher taxa that Gould mentioned represents common ancestors NOT primitive ancestors.

You must have said something unintended there, because common ancestors falsify your theory. But as Gould points out, stasis is something that happens to individual species, so if it’s evidence of creation, every species is a separate basic type. But that isn’t what you say. Once again your views are incoherent.

@Meerkat_SK5

Lastly, observations indicate that basic types are likely to be identified near or at the level of the family. Moreover, a survey by Parker et. al indicates that members of a given family tend to thrive in more or less in similar ecologies and trophic levels.

And this contradicts the paragraph immediately before it, though you clearly don’t realize. You also give no reason why similar ecologies and trophic levels should indicate a basic type. Incidentally, are giant pandas related to polar bears or are they not? If they are, where are your ecology and trophic levels now?

@Meerkat_SK5

Not true, take a look at this article for more:

That doesn’t say one word about nested hierarchy. Just having a sentence with the word “hierarchy” in it isn’t support for your claim. Try again.

[Meerkat_SK5]

@John_Harshman

Very simple. Gene trees disagree only slightly about species tree resolution, i.e. one or two branches out of many. Further, the reasons for conflict are clear, and short branches show more conflict than long ones, as predicted by known causes. None of this supports your claim.

@John_Harshman

Which study? I see no such thing.

Again, this is not what the studies show…

“Regions of high conflict often coincide with the emergence of major clades, such as mammals (e.g., ref. 4), angiosperms (e.g., ref. 5), and metazoa (e.g., ref. 6). This suggests that heterogeneity in the population processes underlying the origins of biodiversity has been recorded in particular nodes across the Tree of Life (e.g., refs. 3, 7).”

@John_Harshman

Note that this convergence is not enough to obscure the true phylogenetic signal. And you still don’t give a reason why convergence identifies unrelated populations.

What are you talking about? The very defintion of convergence is “the independent evolution of similar features in species of different periods or epochs in time. Convergent evolution creates analogous structures that have similar form or function but were not present in the last common ancestor of those groups.”

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia

@John_Harshman

I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean, or how you distinguish top-down causation from bottom-up causation.

A top-down approach (also known as stepwise design and stepwise refinement and in some cases used as a synonym of decomposition ) is essentially the breaking down of a system to gain insight into its compositional sub-systems in a reverse engineering fashion.

A bottom-up approach is the piecing together of systems to give rise to more complex systems, thus making the original systems sub-systems of the emergent system.

Top-down and bottom-up design - Wikipedia

@John_Harshman

I think you think that’s supposed to be the only way transmutation can be confirmed, though of course Theobald mentions a host of ways.

Not really, the only other way he suggested would confirm it is the fossil record.

@John_Harshman

@Meerkat_SK5

Because the morphological trees conflict with the molecular trees. Gene conflicts are a source of evidence for unrelated populations of organisms under my theory.

Why? And are you now saying that every species of yeast is a different basic type?

Now, we are going in circles because I told you this already: Again, "the persistent failure of a single tree of life to emerge makes perfect sense if there is no evolutionary tree of life, because common descent isn’t the case. A common designer is. " by Jonathan Witt

@John_Harshman

So you have no idea what you mean when you say “function”. Not a good way to work.

No, you just refuse to recognize other established definitions of function because of your bias…

@John_Harshman

Such observations as you have mentioned don’t say anything about a top-down process, or at least you have given no reason to suppose they do.

Yes they do:

"The onset of top-down information flow, perhaps in a manner akin to a phase transition, may serve as a more precise definition of life’s origin than the ‘separation of powers’ discussed in §4.2. The origin of life may thus be identified when information gains top-down causal efficacy over the matter that instantiates it. "

@John_Harshman

That’s not a definition of optimality, and you really can’t show optimality,

That’s because the definition of optimality is based on claims of alleged design flaws and my inference from it that a perfect human designer created and developed life.

And yes we can and have shown optimality with microbial organisms and pre-biotic experiments on RNA molecules…

Moreover, natural selection can only influence the mutation rate and select NOT choose which mutation. So it can’t produce a similar state by default. Plus, the Lenski experiment shows that unguided natural selection does not produce speciation or an entire genome of information (i.e. tells the cell how to maintain information or how to pass it on to the next generation).

@John_Harshman

Further, this is evidence of common descent, not of basic types. The only reason a panda has it’s “thumb” is that its real thumb was lost in its caniform ancestors. That’s evidence of common descent, whereas a creator could just put the same structure everywhere it could be useful without reference to any ancestral conditions.

@John_Harshman

You must have said something unintended there, because common ancestors falsify your theory. But as Gould points out, stasis is something that happens to individual species, so if it’s evidence of creation, every species is a separate basic type. But that isn’t what you say. Once again your views are incoherent.

No, it was completely intended. I was referring to the origin of body plans or basic types NOT species.

Based upon observations of stasis in the fossil record, the alleged design flaws found to be optimal suggests a Top-down origin of optimal body plans.

We can infer from this that survival and reproductive capabilities to fill environments were preprogrammed from the start rather than from a bottom up process of trial and error via natural selection.

This means that the hybridization method would confirm whether a basic type will reproduce after its kind based on previously encoded information

@John_Harshman

And this contradicts the paragraph immediately before it, though you clearly don’t realize. You also give no reason why similar ecologies and trophic levels should indicate a basic type. Incidentally, are giant pandas related to polar bears or are they not? If they are, where are your ecology and trophic levels now?

Again, based upon observations showing how members of a given family tend to thrive in more or less in similar ecologies and trophic levels…

.I am inferring that different ecological or trophic features should delineate separate basic types because basic types are preprogrammed to survive a particular environment as I argued already.

@John_Harshman

That doesn’t say one word about nested hierarchy. Just having a sentence with the word “hierarchy” in it isn’t support for your claim. Try again.

Yes it is actually, look up Von Neumann’s universal constructor. It shows that functional requirements within Top-down processes would naturally produce a nest pattern similar to biological systems.

“Turing showed that it was possible to build a device, now known as a universal Turing machine, which, given a sufficient amount of time, could output any computable function [57]…At least superficially, this appears to be very similar to the case presented by biological systems where the update rules change in response to information read-out from the current state (as we discuss below, both are an example of top-down causation via information control).”

The algorithmic origins of life | Journal of The Royal Society Interface (royalsocietypublishing.org)

BTW, Von Neuman came up with his idea before the birth of molecular biology. and without the use of computers.

[John_Harshman]

@Meerkat_SK5

Again, this is not what the studies show…

Please stop quoting from unstated sources without even showing that you are quoting. Have you even read the article you quote or any of the sources cited in the quote?

@Meerkat_SK5

What are you talking about?

I’m talking about the article you cited, about convergence in echolocating species. Nor does the bit you quoted from Wikipedia say anything relevant.

@Meerkat_SK5

A top-down approach (also known as stepwise design and stepwise refinement and in some cases used as a synonym of decomposition ) is essentially the breaking down of a system to gain insight into its compositional sub-systems in a reverse engineering fashion.

Then that has nothing to do with causation, and it still doesn’t tell me what you meant in the bit I complained about.

@Meerkat_SK5

Not really, the only other way he suggested would confirm it is the fossil record.

Then you didn’t read Theobald.

@Meerkat_SK5

Now, we are going in circles because I told you this already: Again, "the persistent failure of a single tree of life to emerge makes perfect sense if there is no evolutionary tree of life, because common descent isn’t the case. A common designer is. " by Jonathan Witt

You didn’t answer the question. Gene conflicts do not prevent us from finding a single tree of life either.

@Meerkat_SK5

No, you just refuse to recognize other established definitions of function because of your bias…

You have failed to present any definition of function, must less multiple ones.

@Meerkat_SK5

"The onset of top-down information flow, perhaps in a manner akin to a phase transition, may serve as a more precise definition of life’s origin than the ‘separation of powers’ discussed in §4.2. The origin of life may thus be identified when information gains top-down causal efficacy over the matter that instantiates it. "

That says nothing to support any claim you have made. I doubt you understand what that quote means. I certainly don’t.

@Meerkat_SK5

That’s because the definition of optimality is based on claims of alleged design flaws and my inference from it that a perfect human designer created and developed life.

More word salad.

@Meerkat_SK5

Moreover, natural selection can only influence the mutation rate and select NOT choose which mutation.

Natural selection “chooses” which mutations become fixed, not which mutations happen. What are you trying to say? You have no idea what the Lenski experiment shows.

@Meerkat_SK5

No, it was completely intended. I was referring to the origin of body plans or basic types NOT species.

Then you have no idea what you said. This seems common with you. Stasis, which you claim is evidence for different basic types, is a phenomenon within individual species. Therefore if you use stasis as evidence, you are claiming that each species is a separate basic type. And nothing you say follows from anything else you say. You are incapable of forming a coherent argument for anything and incapable of following anyone else’s argument. This isn’t working out for you. I’m getting ready to give up again.